Science and Scripture: What do we do with conflict?

Michael Goheen

Trinity Western University

Situation

Secularised science uncovered evidence challenged long standing traditions in church

Highly charged, polemical atmosphere

Charges and counter-charges

Equally authoritative

Now no one has, or can have, any objections against the facts which geology brings to light.  Those facts are just as much the words of God as the content of Holy Writ and are therefore to be accepted in faith by everyone (Herman Bavinck).

Scientific and scriptural interpretation

But a very strict distinction must be made between those facts and the exegesis of them which geologists propose.  The phenomena which the earth exhibits is one thing, but the combinations of hypotheses and conclusions which the investigators of the earth base on them are something different...

...Scripture and theology have nothing to fear from the facts which have been written by the almighty hand of God.  Conflict arises only because the text of both the book of Scripture and that of nature is often read and understood so badly. -Herman Bavinck

Conflict between interpretations

Science Traditional interpretation

Creation Scripture

He sets the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved (Ps. 104:5).

O sun, stand still... so the sun stood still (Josh. 10:12f.).

The earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises (Eccl. 1:4f.).

Learning from the Copernican fiasco

He sets the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved (Ps. 104:5).

O sun, stand still... so the sun stood still (Josh. 10:12f.).

The earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises (Eccl. 1:4f.).

People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whosoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system which of all systems, of course, is the best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

-Martin Luther

The Copernican theory undoubtedly contained a challenge for the Catholic theology. But instead of accepting the challenge and reflecting on faith in a new perspective, the Church opted for an easy conservatism, keeping the enemy at bay by means of its anathemas. This failure to accept the challenge of a new world picture was a great loss to the Church and to Christianity.

-Max Wildiers

Two non-negotiables

Affirmations central to Christian faith

That God created the world by His word

Adam and Eve were historical persons

Three interpretive questions open for debate: Age of the Earth

Young earth advocates: 6,000-10,000 years old

Old earth advocates: 4 billion years old

Three interpretive questions open for debate: Days in Genesis 1

6-24 hour daysMost natural way to read the text

Interpretation throughout much of church history

Divine pattern basis for human pattern

Much longer periods of timeScientific evidence demands longer period

Unique ‘time’ (No sun; Creation and creating days)

Three interpretive questions open for debate:

Days: Chronological or Literary? Chronological

6-24 hour days or long periods of time

LiteraryDo believe events took placeBut Genesis 1 not video taped account of how it took placeHistorical act of creation narrated in highly literary way

Solutions to conflict

Conflict between interpretationsSecular scientific interpretation of creational evidence

Traditional interpretation of Genesis 1

Three major paths toward solution to conflict

Positions opting only for traditional interpretation of Genesis 1

Creation science most influential

Young earth, 6-24 hour days

Genesis 1 describes how God created

Form own scientific community to work in science according to these presuppositions

Brief evaluation

Appreciation:Take Bible seriouslyExposed many problems with evolutionary science

ConcernsStrident rigidity—not only position faithfulSet up conflict as Bible vs. science; creation vs. evolution

Positions opting solely for secular science

Liberal and neo-orthodox theologies that:

Place Genesis 1 in values category—account of Israel’s religious experience

Mythical account with relevance for believers

Positions do not do justice to God’s act of creation and content of Genesis 1

Positions that attempt to take Genesis 1 and scientific evidence seriously

Theistic evolutionAccepts secular science’s picture of evolutionBelieve God works through this process

Concerns:Difficulty in maintaining vital distinction between creation and fallDifficulty in finding place for AdamProblems with evolutionary theory today

Positions that attempt to take Genesis 1 and scientific evidence seriously

ConcordismAssumption: Genesis 1 and science offer scientific picture of world’s originsAttempt to harmonize the twoGap theoryDay-age theory

ConcernsGap theory highly speculative—dead todayDay age: odd amalgam of scientific origins and Genesis 1

Positions that attempt to take Genesis 1 and scientific evidence seriously

Progressive CreationismSimilar to theistic evolutionEvolution is micro-evolutionGod steps in to create new species

ConcernsSimilar ones to theistic evolution and concordismDeistic

Positions that attempt to take Genesis 1 and scientific evidence seriously

Framework hypothesisGenesis 1 not video-tape account of creating work of God

Highly literary rendering of God’s creating activity

Literary structure for other reasons than chronology or description

Real ‘historical’ events lie behind text

Some tentative conclusions

Evolutionary theory is damaging to church’s life especially as it assumes the status of full-blown worldview

When the response of creation science becomes rigid and strident (and sometimes simplistic) it doesn’t help the situation

Some tentative conclusions

Framework hypothesis and young earth /6 day-24 hour positions are defensibleConcerns about each of themWilling to live with uncertaintyEnormous worldview/doctrinal content of Genesis 1 more importantNeed for Christian love and on-going discussion

Some tentative conclusions

Ongoing dialogue that remains aware of two dangers:

Absorption of Scripture into scientistic worldview (Scripture must remain final authority!)

Establishing our interpretations as what Scripture ‘clearly’ or ‘obviously’ teaches (Copernican fiasco—be warned!)