Science and the Bible

Theology may once have been described as ‘the queen of the sciences', but many consider that it has long been removed from this throne. The relationship between the Bible and science has been characterised in several ways over the centuries. There are those who see the two as fundamentally in conflict. Some think that they just ask different questions (how versus why). Others argue that in fact, they are complementary.

Disagreements
Those who see them as enemies tend to emphasise disagreements. There are a number of issues upon which science and the Bible have been said to conflict. These include whether the earth is billions of years old, whether the universe began with a Big Bang, the theory of evolution, how and when dinosaurs fit into the biblical creation story, heliocentricism (the belief that the earth revolves around the sun), the possibility of miracles and the impact of neuroscience on the belief in a human soul.

It's true that differences do exist between certain scientific theories and certain interpretations of the Bible. Christians who believe in creationism often argue that the Bible does not allow for evolutionary theory, or for an earth older than 6,000 years or for the Big Bang. They argue that a plain reading of Genesis 1 and 2 leads to a belief in special creation and an earth that was created in six literal days a few thousand years ago. On the other hand, other Christians who either don't believe in creationism - or who believe the issue is a bit of red herring - tend to interpret the Genesis accounts more symbolically (although this doesn't necessarily mean mythically).

Galileo
The ‘classic' case study for those who see science and religion as opposites is the argument between the scientist Galileo and the Catholic Church during the sixteenth century CE. Galileo claimed that he had evidence that the earth revolved around the sun. However, the popular medieval understanding, drawn from the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, was that the earth was stationary and at the centre of the universe. The Church had largely bought into this idea and interpreted Bible verses such as Psalm 96.10 and Ecclesiastes 1.5 in ways that were consistent with it.

Since Galileo criticised such biblical interpretation, he ended up in trouble with the cardinals and the pope. However, a cardinal named Robert Bellarmine wrote to Galileo, saying that if he had real proof that the earth did revolve around the sun, then ‘passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary' would have to be reviewed. So the issue was not really ‘science versus the Bible', but whether there was a scientific case for abandoning Aristotle's views, which at first glance seemed to fit better with the Bible.

Miracles
In the past, it was also often assumed by critics that the miracles described in the Bible were impossible because they ‘broke' the ultra-predictable laws of physics which had been observed by scientists (e.g. the law of gravitation would have made the ascent of Jesus to heaven impossible). However, others argue that the rise of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity have challenged this idea that the universe runs uniformly and like clockwork. More recently, the rise of neuroscience has raised questions about the traditional Christian beliefs in the immortal soul and human free will. Some neuroscientists have asserted that we are merely physical creatures who will not survive death and that we possess no more free will than do animals. However, the fact that there are Christian neuroscientists shows that such a belief is far from being a done deal. For their part, theologians have been prepared to review the biblical concept of the soul. They have also been prepared to revise longheld ‘dualist' ideas about its interaction with the brain.

Complementary
On the other hand, there are theologians and scientists who disagree that there is - or should be - a pitched battle between the two disciplines. They argue that both tend to approach issues from different starting points. In other words, scientists ask ‘how', while theologians ask ‘why'. This view was first articulated clearly in the sixteenth century CE by Francis Bacon, who is considered by many to have been a major contributor to the rise of observational science. Bacon's view was that God had revealed himself through ‘two books' - the Scriptures and the natural world - and that both contained important truths.

This idea was later characterised in two very different ways. The first emphasised that science and theology were two very distinct fields - so never overlapped. The second argued that although there may at times be some overlap, essentially the two were complementary. Neither of these two perspectives are without problems, but many view them as closer to the truth than the idea that science and the Bible should always be at each other's throats.

The fact remains that a large number of Christians, whether within the scientific community or without, do not agree that the Bible and scientific research are necessarily in conflict. For many, the underlying issue is that the real conflict is between atheism and theism, rather than science and religion.