Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures.

In today’s video, Brian McLaren talks about what he calls a paradigm of compatibility between evolution and Christian faith. He explains his own comfort with accepting Scripture and evolution and seeing the process of evolution as a wonderful opportunity for adaptation, growth, and development and a reflection of God’s glory. He believes that over time Christians will get a lot more comfortable with the idea of evolution is a part of God’s creation, just as Christians came to accept Copernicus’ theory of heliocentricity without abandoning the Bible (only certain assumptions about what the Bible meant).

This week we feature the next clip from the documentary “From the Dust”, directed by filmmaker Ryan Pettey. It is our sincere hope that, above all else, the film can become a focal point for some of the big questions that inevitably arise at the intersection of science and faith.

To help foster such dialogue, we are once again including several discussion questions with this week’s clip. In the transcript below, you’ll find several prompts that are meant to help viewers dig deeper into the material being presented. Mouse over each highlighted region and a question will appear on the side. We encourage you to watch this video with your friends, your churches, your small groups and Sunday School classes, your pastors -- or anyone else for that matter – and take some time to discuss what is being said (and maybe even what isn’t). You may not all agree, but you will find yourselves engaged in fruitful and spirited conversation. And it is this kind of conversation that will help move the science and faith discussion forward.

Editor's Note: The full documentary is now available on DVD and Blu-ray. You can order the film here, and learn more about the project here.

"Framing the Debate" Transcript

Jeff Schloss: “So why are Christians nervous about evolution and why do we even use a phrase like the ‘e’ word? The word itself has a negative connotation in many groups.”

Alister McGrath: “I think in the States you have a culture war between forces of religion and secularism, and what has happened is that some people in that debate have seen science as a weapon to be used against religion. So, the first casualty in this culture war, I am afraid, has been a proper understanding of what science is and then how it relates to religion.”

Nancey Murphy: “One of the concerns that evolutionary biology raises for some Christians is the view that because evolution is a long drawn out process and because the evolutionary biologists themselves say that evolution is not toward anything—it is just from origins and it is not directed—that that somehow removes God’s purposes from the universe.”

Alister McGrath: “I think we find atheists arguing that evolution is fundamentally a random, directionless, purposeless development, and therefore, that means that there is no intrinsic meaning to human existence. We are simply the random outcome of an essentially random process.”

Jeff Schloss: “Are those, in fact, genuine entailments of evolutionary theory or does that involve philosophical moves that are arguable on the grounds of philosophy, and not on the grounds of the evidence for evolutionary theory? That is a conversation, I regret, that Christians haven’t had very deeply.”

Ard Louis: “Christians are hearing what non-Christians are telling them about what evolution means, and they are believing it. Underlying it are, in fact, often a worldview or philosophical assumptions that say it is all purposeless.”

Alister McGrath: “The point I would like to make in response to that is that that is a very superficial reading of things—that is simply saying, ‘Look, we can’t scientifically discern purpose or meaning, so we draw the conclusion that there is none.’ It is extremely important to make the point that the idea of meaning or purpose is not an empirical notion. It is not something that you observe; it is something you infer.”

Nancey Murphy: “The science is, by design, unable to talk about purposes. Evolutionary Biology is a science that only looks at the question of how one life form develops from another life form. It doesn’t have the sort of perspective you would need in order to see whether there is or is not purpose there. Science by its very definition cannot make pronouncements either for or against religious truths.”

Alister McGrath: “And that is why it is extremely important to emphasize that the scientific method, when properly applied, is neither theistic nor anti-theistic. It is simply about trying to offer explanations for what we find in the world—proximate explanations, not ultimate explanations. Ultimate explanations begin to ask deeper questions like, ‘Why is the universe as it is?’ That is where we can start to talk about God.”

Michael Ramsden: “I think what has happened in the last couple decades is that we have lost sight of the overall history the context of this debate, and then that has then fueled a continued misunderstanding about the contemporary debate, and it instilled this sense of war between Christianity and science—that these two things are battling each other, they are fighting each other, and they are at odds with each other. So, the options are look—be pre-modern, go live in a cave, and believe in God or embrace reality, welcome the new world, and be an atheist. Whereas actually what the facts, what the figures, what everything else shows is that that is not actually correct.”

John Polkinghorne: “There is a sort of myth in modern society that when Charles Darwin published his great book The Origin of Species in 1859 that all the scientific people shouted ‘yes’ and all the religious people shouted ‘no.’ That is not true on either side, and in particular, there were religious people who from the start welcomed Darwin’s ideas. Charles Kingsley, who was a clergyman friend of Darwin’s, said, ‘Darwin has shown us that God had done something clever. Rather than producing a ready-made world with the snap of divine fingers, God had brought into being a world so full of fruitfulness and potentiality that creatures could be allowed to be themselves and to make themselves. We have to recognize that God acts as much through natural processes as in any other way. The idea that somehow the creator of the world, who ordains the character of nature, does not work through natural processes is really a silly idea.

Alister McGrath: “In light of the deeper Christian narrative, everything makes sense if we assume there is a purposeful God, who in some way is directing his creation towards the outcomes that we now see.”

Ard Louis: “One of the really big difficulties in looking at all this stuff about creation and science is that we take a lot of our own feelings about ourselves and put them in. We think that where we come from determines who we are and how we should live. I think that is the reason why a lot of Christians intuitively would prefer man to be made in an instant because somehow they feel that where we come from determines who we are. Therefore, if we were made in an instant that would be more glorious than if God made us over time. But I think that is wrong, the Bible tells us that are value comes from what God thinks about us, not by the details of how we are made.”

Chris Tilling: “Humans are explicitly stated to have come from the dust of the earth. So, in terms of our constitution, we are no different from the animal kingdom. What is different according to the Genesis account is that God enters into relationship with humans. It shifts the focus away from who we are, to who God is, and it seems to me that that is more faithful to the Christian gospel.”

John Polkinghorne: “I think that Christian people are genuinely seeking to serve the God of truth. That means that they have a very important investment in truth, and they need to welcome truth and not be afraid of truth in whatever sort it comes. Now, not all truth comes through science, but some of it does, and it is very sad to see people serving the God of truth who are turning their backs on certain types of truth.”

Though some may believe that moving the science/faith dialogue forward is best left to scientists, scholars, and theologians, we at BioLogos recognize that our pastors play an invaluable role in the conversation. Across the globe, pastors are helping their congregations work through difficult issues of science and faith with honesty, insight, and a gentle spirit. To this end we present an ongoing series recognizing sermons (and the pastors who give them) that are helping to promote the harmony of science and faith. If you know a sermon or podcast related to science and faith that has especially spoken to you, please let us know.

During the 1600’s, the majority of philosophers, religious authorities, and astronomers alike believed in what is known as a geocentric universe—a universe centered on the earth. However, the scientist Galileo was convinced otherwise. It was his conviction that the universe was heliocentric, or centered on the sun. When church leaders learned of his ideas, Galileo was forced to recant and abandon this (what they believed to be) heretical belief. This event marked the beginning of the science and faith war. [For more information concerning Galileo and the Inquisition, please visit the following BioLogos blogs: here and here.]

According to John Van Sloten of New Hope Church Calgary, however, the idea that God’s truth and scientific truth disagree with one another is a “false dichotomy if ever [he] has heard of one.” If God has indeed created all things, pure scientific truth should never be a “problematic thing” for Christians. If anything, Van Sloten continues, scientific truth enriches the faith as it reveals his majesty and provides Christians with a deeper understanding of God. He emphasizes that both the Bible and nature (as understood through science) are God’s books. Therefore, any point of conflict between the two arises only when the Church is reading one book incorrectly. Although science is not contrary to the Bible, countless scientists have strayed away from faith on account of this misconception, and many Christians have missed out on the opportunity to worship God through the study of His creation because the church has been too afraid to fully engage this field. To stress the idea that nature reveals God, Van Sloten quotes King David in Psalm 19: 1-4: “The heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is silent in the skies; yet their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to all the world.” Creation indeed reveals God’s beauty, ingenuity, and greatness.

Then, Van Sloten addresses this question: how can one reconcile the belief that God is providentially working in and through the world with the claim that science can empirically explain how everything works? He points to a quote in Dr. John Polkinghorne’s book Science and the Trinity that says:

…it has been widely recognized that the intrinsic unpredictabilities that twentieth century physics has uncovered as limits on our knowledge of detailed behavior both in quantum theory and chaos theory have significantly qualified the kind of merely mechanical physical process that previously had seemed to be the deliverance of science.

In other words, although science can explain much of the world, there are laws at work within nature that cause it to be unpredictable, and thus restrict science’s ability to describe things in a detailed and “mechanical” manner. For this reason, one cannot use science to discredit God’s providence operating “in the ordained open grain of nature.” Van Sloten further explains that if humans have the capacity to act as influential agents in the world, it is reasonable to believe that there is a Creator with an analogous capacity. Scientists, he says, may even be the greatest example of this concept as they constantly intervene and manipulate the natural order of things in their research. Thus, not only does nature leave room for God to work, but also, it can be influenced by the will of humans.

As the sermon closes, Van Sloten re-emphasizes that scientific discovery allows a person to stand in awe of God and worship him more. Although one may disagree with the atheistic conclusions that scientists draw from their discoveries, the data itself reflects his beauty and glory; it is not to be neglected.

Psalm 19 begins with the well-loved words “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Scientists often turn to this Psalm to express their praise to the Creator when they make discoveries in the lab – the biochemistry of a cell also declares the glory of God! In the second half of the Psalm, David turns his thoughts from the God’s world to God’s word, writing “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.” David praises God for both revelations – for what God has revealed in both nature and scripture. In later centuries, theologians introduced the metaphor of two “books”¹ where nature is seen as a book, parallel to the book of Scripture. The Belgic Confession of 1561 states in Article 2 that

We know God by two means:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe,
since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book
    in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters
    to make us ponder the invisible things of God:
        God’s eternal power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
    All these things are enough to convict humans and to leave them without excuse.

Second, God makes himself known to us more clearly by his holy and divine Word,
    as much as we need in this life, for God’s glory and for our salvation.²

Since both are revelations from God, they both carry God’s full authority and cannot be ignored. The primary purpose of any revelation is to teach us about God,³ but both of these also have something to say about how and why God created the world. Sometimes the revelations appear to be in conflict, but since God speaks only truth, the two revelations cannot be teaching us contradictory things.

So what is the source of all the friction? The conflict must occur at the level of human interpretation: either a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in nature, or a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in scripture. In debates over Genesis and evolution, Christians often disagree about which interpretation is in error. We can agree, however, that scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.

For more on the relationship between nature and scripture, see "What is the proper relationship between science and religion?"

Science: Interpreting God’s revelation in Nature

Building scientific theories resembles map making. A map gathers different kinds of data like longitude and latitude, elevations, waterways, and climate to make a coherent representation of reality. The map is not reality itself but a model of reality. Scientific maps of reality are known as “theories.” Some theories are new and tentative (like string theory), while others are long-standing and well-supported by abundant observations and experiments (like photosynthesis). The process of science is to develop and test these theories: scientists follow the map, see if it matches the real world, then modify the map to match reality better.

How reliable are scientific results? Science is a human activity, so of course it can be in error at times. Self-promoting individuals can push for outcomes that advance their reputation. A desire for particular results or an assumption about the ways things are can result in manipulation of data, whether consciously or unconsciously. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of examples of such contrived data in the history of science. One chronicle of how such distortions were perpetuated can be found in Steven Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man,⁴ which retells the tragic story of how 19th century science found alleged data to support prevailing prejudices about the relationship between race and intelligence.

However, science is self-correcting. All scientific publications are peer-reviewed, where experts check for errors in methods, over-stated claims, and other problems. Published measurements are tested by other groups of scientists to see if they get the same results. Published theories are vigorously debated and compared to alternate explanations. Sometimes even selfish motivations can help the self-correcting process, since scientists can advance their careers by publishing errors and proposing new theories. Inaccuracies in theories are corrected when new discoveries and experiments reveal a problem. When theories are new and based on preliminary data, biases such as those described above can have a large influence on results. But after theories are tested and refined by many scientists all over the world, they give a reliable interpretation of physical reality.

Interpreting God’s revelation in Scripture

For Christians, the Bible is not just a book of moral lessons or factual statements. Rather, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Scripture connects God’s action in real historical events with his purpose behind those actions. Scripture also draws us into the story, so that we are not mere readers, but citizens of God’s kingdom and part of God’s redemptive history. The Bible is the result of human-divine partnerships in which God inspired and commanded the human authors to communicate his word to his people.

Christians often disagree on the precise meaning of particular passages. Some scriptural teachings, like the accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection, have clear meaning which has been affirmed by the church throughout the centuries and around the world. Other teachings, like baptism of adults vs. infants, are ambiguous and their interpretation has been debated for centuries. Some teachings, like ownership of slaves, were viewed one way for centuries, then were reinterpreted as the gospel moved into new cultures. Church tradition can be a valuable guide to good interpretation, but at times should be challenged.

How can we find the best interpretation of scripture? One good strategy is to always start by studying and pondering what the passage meant to the inspired human author and the original audience. The style of language, the genre of literature, and the historical and cultural context are all helpful in understanding the original meaning. Once we better understand God’s revelation to the first audience, we can consider what God might have to teach us today in the 21st century. Without this strategy, we risk imposing our own modern culture and personal preferences on the text. This does not mean you have to be a scholar to understand the Bible. Even in confusing passages (like Genesis 1-2), the primary teaching of scripture is usually clear even to a child (God created the world and declared it good). The careful background work becomes important for scholars and teachers who want to explore the subtle meanings and implications of the text (such as how it fits with science).

See "What factors should be considered in determining how to approach a passage of scripture?"

An Historical Example

The story of Galileo is a well-known historic example of conflict between science and Biblical interpretation. In Galileo’s time there was a heated disagreement over the solar system, specifically whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center. This led to a debate over the meaning of Bible verses like Psalm 93:1 which state “The earth is fixed and cannot be moved.” If this verse is read scientifically, it would mean that the Earth was stationary and did not orbit the Sun. However, Galileo made astronomical observations that showed the planets did move about the Sun. Today we understand Psalm 93:1 to mean that the earth is established and secure, just as God’s throne is established. Galileo, who remained a loyal Catholic to the end of his life, makes his position clear in a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina:

"[In] St. Augustine we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.' "

"This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us."⁵

Galileo did not see his discoveries as contrary to the Bible, but contrary to certain human interpretations of the Bible. And rather than dictating what the correct interpretation should be, Galileo recommended that Biblical scholars work to better understand the “true sense of scriptural texts.”

Interaction between science and biblical interpretation

What do we do when the results of science disagree with common biblical interpretations? One response is to say that the Bible is right and science is wrong; the Bible, after all, is more important to the Christian. This response, however, forgets that the Bible is always interpreted, and elevates a particular biblical interpretation to the authority of the Bible itself. It also discounts God’s revelation to us in the natural world, rather than listening to what science has learned about it.

Another response is to say that science is right and the Bible is wrong. This response, however, says that the Bible itself is in error, rather than that a particular interpretation is incorrect. It also elevates scientific knowledge as the best type of knowledge, even though science is ill-equipped to answer questions about ancient texts.

A better response is to reconsider the interpretations on both sides. When we hear a scientific result that seems to conflict with the Bible, we should look at it more closely. How strong is the evidence? Is there a consensus among scientists? Has the theory been tested extensively? What alternate theories are available? At the same time we take a closer look at Biblical interpretation. What did the passage mean to the original audience? What interpretations have been held throughout church history? What are the theological implications? Rather than rejecting one side or the other, we can study both more carefully, remembering that God is speaking to us in both scripture and nature. In this approach, science does not determine which interpretation of scripture is best. Instead, science motivates us to take a closer look at scripture, using good biblical scholarship to determine the best interpretation.

Occasionally, multiple interpretations of scripture seem equally appropriate when considered with the tools of biblical scholarship. In those cases, science can break the tie. By showing us what God reveals in nature, science can show that some interpretations are inappropriate. As Professor Donald Mackay writes:

Obviously a surface meaning of many passages could be tested, for example, against archaeological discoveries, and the meaning of others can be enriched by scientific and historical knowledge. But I want to suggest that the primary function of scientific enquiry in such fields is neither to verify nor to add to the inspired picture, but to help us in eliminating improper ways of reading it. To pursue the metaphor, I think the scientific data God gives us can sometimes serve as his way of warning us when we are standing too close to the picture, at the wrong angle, or with the wrong expectations, to be able to see the inspired pattern he means it to convey to us.⁶

The science of evolution is compatible with many faith traditions. Muslims, Jews and Christians alike can align their faith with the scientific account of our origins, and there is no way to give a scientific proof for one monotheistic faith over another. Therefore, instead of arguing that science supports Christianity over other faiths, this response will simply show the compatibility of Christianity with a scientific understanding of the universe. The Bible’s description of God is consistent with what is seen in the world around us.

See “What is the proper relationship between science and religion?”

Consistency

Christian doctrine is broadly compatible with the scientific accounts of our origins. The Genesis creation story, for example, speaks of beginnings in a way that reminds us of the Big Bang theory, although this concept would certainly not have been a part of the author’s worldview.

Science shows us a universe that reflects many of the Christian God’s characteristics, such as omnipotence, love and perfection.¹ For example, God’s omnipotence and perfection are evident through the laws of nature, all of which are finely tuned to allow life to develop. From a scientific standpoint, these features of the universe are surprising and warrant further explanation. But in light of the Christian narrative — in which a rational God intentionally created a universe congenial to life — the fine tuning of the universe makes sense. The Bible also claims that human beings have been created in God’s image.² Our ability to love others and engage in meaningful relationships is therefore consistent with the existence of a loving God. And although radical altruism challenges evolutionary explanation, it resonates nicely with Christianity. Why, for example, would Mother Theresa of Calcutta spend her life with the poor? Why would a soldier sacrifice his life for people he does not know? These examples fit comfortably within the story of a God who sacrificed his own life for his creation, and whose image we bear.

Consider the words of Albert Einstein: “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”³ The simple fact that we have the intellect and skills to inquire and test and make scientific discoveries is remarkable. But with a rational, all powerful God in whose image we are made, it is no surprise that we are able and eager to make scientific sense of the world around us. Oxford University professor Alister McGrath puts it well:

"The Christian vision of reality offers us a standpoint from which we may view the natural world, and see certain things that others might indeed regard as puzzling, or strange — such as fine-tuning — as consonant with the greater picture that the Christian has to offer."⁴

Many of the underlying themes of the monotheistic traditions are shared. Benevolence and justice, for example, are valued in many faiths. The central difference between Christianity and other faiths is the purpose and meaning of Jesus Christ’s life and the truth of his resurrection. There is nothing about evolutionary science that conflicts with the central Christian trinitarian understanding of Jesus.

Rationality

Read Darrel Falk's essay A Rational Belief for more on why Christian faith can have a rational basis.

Though belief in the Christian God is not scientifically provable, it is not irrational. Commitment to Christ is a reasonable choice supported by a variety of non-scientific evidence from history, philosophy, and the testimony of others. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit works in each person’s life to bring them into relationship with Jesus.

Many voices today say that science and Christianity are opposed to each other. Some atheists claim that science has debunked religion and superstition of all forms. Many in the general public think that the church is anti-science. And within the church, science is often portrayed as challenging important Christian beliefs. None of these voices, however, hint at the positive and fruitful relationship between Christianity and science. Here we review several ways to view the relationship between science and Christianity.

Are Christianity and science at war?

When creation and evolution clash in a courtroom, the daily news fills up with stories suggesting that there is some profound conflict between science and Christianity. Inevitably, someone mentions the historical incident of Galileo. Galileo was charged with heresy by the church in 1633 for teaching that the Earth orbits the Sun. From Galileo to textbook battles, the hasty conclusion is that science and Christianity are engaged in an endless debate, fundamentally opposed to each other.

For a review of Galileo and other historic interactions between science and Christianity, see “Christianity and Science in Historical Perspective” by Ted Davis (blog series, PDF) and “The Galileo Affair: Emblematic or Exceptional?” by Matt Rosano (blog)

Yet the Galileo incident and today’s conflicts are often about much more than the particular claims of science or faith. Personalities, politics, and culture wars all come into play when drawing the battle lines. In many instances, science and scientists are not themselves in conflict with Christian belief. In fact, Galileo himself was a Christian who believed “that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all His works and divinely read in the open book of Heaven”¹ Many scientists then and now² are Christians who see no conflict between their scientific work and their faith. Most things studied via the natural sciences—such as the migration patterns of birds or the interior of atoms—do not raise any theological or Biblical concerns.

The “warfare” model, then, is not very helpful for understanding evolution and Christianity, since it assumes conflict from the start. A few particular areas of scientific study—like the big bang and evolution—do raise concerns for Christians, but most of the BioLogos website (see Questions by Category on the right) is devoted to showing that evolution and Christianity are not truly at war. In the rest of this answer, we’ll explore other models for the working relationship between science and Christianity.

Mark Noll, a leading historian and evangelical, gives 16 reasons why the warfare model is a mistake. (blog series)

Are Christianity and science completely separate?

One way to erase the conflicts between science and Christianity is to view them as entirely separate endeavors, with different purposes, methods, and bodies of knowledge. This view emphasizes that science is a system of knowledge about the world and its behavior, whereas religion is about morality, God, and the afterlife. Thus, Christianity and science cannot conflict, because they are addressing different sorts of questions.³

This model has some weaknesses (see below), but it does help us understand some important aspects of the relationship. Many apparent conflicts between science and religion occur because of a lack of understanding of the fundamental differences between the two. When someone claims that the Bible answers a scientific question, and another claims that science answers a question about God, the conflict immediately flares up. Many conflicts become enflamed because participants forget that Christianity and science do generally address very different questions.

This model also reminds us that science is not the only source of knowledge. There are many sorts of questions that simply do not fall under the domain of science. Borrowing an example from the Rev. John Polkinghorne, there is more than one answer to the question of “Why is the water boiling in the tea kettle?”⁴ The scientific answer might be “the water is boiling because at this temperature it undergoes a phase transition from liquid to vapor.” Another acceptable, though nonscientific, answer is “the water is boiling because I put the kettle on the stove.” A third answer might be “the water is boiling because my prayer partner is coming over for tea.” None of the answers is wrong; rather, each gives a different perspective on the question. The scientific answer does not tell the whole story. Science cannot answer questions like “Is my friend trustworthy?” or “Is this poem well written?” Science is tremendously successful in understanding the physical world, but we should let that tempt us to think it can be used to understanding everything in life.

Artist Mark Sprinkle writes on the importance of music and poetry in understanding God’s world.

Science cannot answer the question “Does God exist?” Some people argue that God’s existence is actually a scientific claim that could be tested like a chemical reaction. But science studies the natural world, not the supernatural. No amount of scientific testing or theorizing could prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator. The claim that “God exists” is a metaphysical one, not a claim about nature or physical laws

Though science cannot prove or disprove God’s existence, it can provide clues that support belief in God. See “What is the fine-tuning of the universe?” and “On what grounds can one claim that the Christian God is the creator?”

This model also reminds us that the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. The Bible is silent on most of the topics that concern scientists, like protons, photosynthesis, penguins, and Pluto. The Bible is not a science textbook, in the same way that it is not a textbook of plumbing, agriculture, or economics. Instead, God teaches us about these things through his general revelation in the created order.

However, this model has some significant weaknesses. It isolates religion from science, which can be a first step in marginalizing religion from public discourse. By defining religion and science as separate, this model doesn’t help us understand the interactions they do have, either negative or positive. The model also sets science on its own, apart from religion, while Christians believe that no part of our lives is outside of our walk with God.

Science and Christianity interact, correcting and enhancing each other

While many questions can be clearly categorized as “science” questions or as “Bible” questions, other questions are on the boundary. For topics like evolution, medical ethics, and climate change, we need to consider both science and faith when seeking out God’s truth. For such complex questions, we need all the knowledge and wisdom we can get, rather than handicapping ourselves by looking only to science or only to the Bible. If we look to only one or the other, we will get a distorted view of the issue. As Pope John Paul II wrote,

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.⁵

God reveals himself in the book of Scripture and the book of Nature. To learn more about God and his work, we study both books. When one book is confusing or ambiguous, insights from the other book can help us understand it. In both revelations, we look for the underlying truth of who God is and how he made the world. Rev John Polkinghorne wrote, “Science and theology have things to say to each other, since both are concerned with the search for truth attained through motivated belief.”⁶

For more on God’s two revelations, see “Can Science and Scripture Be Reconciled?”

Faith can have a positive impact on science by guiding the practical application of scientific discoveries. With the rapid advance of science and technology, many ethical questions are facing our society. Development of safe nuclear energy is not far from the development of nuclear weapons, new medical imaging techniques save lives but are too expensive for the poor, and DNA testing improves treatment of genetic disorders at the risk of the results being misused.⁷ To address these complex questions, we need both science and the moral grounding of religion. We can’t just give a quick answer from the Bible without studying the scientific complexities, nor can we look to science alone to guide ethical decisions. Christianity and other religions lay the groundwork for the moral standards that are essential for the appropriate use of science and technology.

Science also has a positive impact on the faith of the believer. The Bible teaches that “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). Christians see God’s glory when looking up at the stars, and in colliding galaxies seen through a telescope. God’s glory is revealed in the beautiful symmetry of a maple leaf, and in the complex biochemical activity inside each cell in that leaf. Science and technology have shown us much more of God’s creation than was known in Biblical times, revealing more and more of God’s glory.

See “Science as an Instrument of Worship” by Jennifer Wiseman (PDF) (blog series)

Finally, Christianity can provide the belief framework for how and why we do science. Christians need not set aside their faith when they sit down to do science. Read on to the next question for more.

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.

Early Christian Thought

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.¹

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.² In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.³

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.⁴

Later Christian Thought

There are many other non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1–2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion and was strongly influenced by Augustine. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings.

In Summa Theologica, he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:

On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world.⁵

Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the eighteenth century—just before Darwin published The Origin of Species—in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought the scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,

The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them.⁶

Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details] but to lead us to God.”⁷

In the nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary was known for its staunch defense of conservative Calvinism and the absolute authority of Scripture. Perhaps the most noted Princeton theologian of that era, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution as giving the proper scientific account of human origins. He believed that hearing God’s voice in Scripture and the findings of solid scientific work were not at odds. As historian Mark Noll puts it, “B. B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.”⁸

Conclusion

The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The discoveries of modern science should neither be seen as the instigator of some abandonment of trust in Scripture, nor as contradictory to Scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of Scripture’s meaning.

Augustine offers this advice:

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.⁹

Many believe that before Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, Christians as a whole maintained an entirely literal, six-day interpretation of Genesis in which the earth was only a few thousand years old. In fact, however, the idea of an old earth had already become increasingly popular among Christians throughout the half century leading up to The Origin of Species. ¹

Another misconception is that the arrival of Darwin’s theory led the scientific and theological communities to immediately take up positions opposing each other. But history reveals that one of the earliest supporters of evolutionary theory in the American scientific community was a devout Christian botanist named Asa Gray. And among theologians, BB Warfield—an architect of the contemporary evangelical understanding of biblical inerrancy—believed that certain forms of evolution were also compatible with a high view of Scripture.

The First Christian Response to Origin of Species in America

Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. By the time The Origin of Species was published, the idea of evolution in many natural processes was already popular, and the term development was used in its place for discussions of society’s change or the history of the solar system.² What’s more, it was widely accepted that the earth was much older than previously thought. Most of the groundwork for this understanding resulted from geological work done earlier that century. Through meticulous study of the fossil record, naturalists helped spread the view that the earth was old rather than young.

See How are the ages of the earth and universe calculated?

Though many people like to focus on Christian hostility to evolutionary theory, a careful look at history reveals some surprising facts. For instance, the first American scientist to carefully review and publically support Darwin’s Origin of Species was a devout Christian named Asa Gray, now regarded as one of the most prominent American biologists of the 19^th century. A shy person who avoided politics, Gray worked quietly and does not have the same name recognition as scientists like Louis Agassiz and T.H. Huxley—both flamboyant self-promoters who provoked public debate. But, his brilliant research during his 30-year career at Harvard University helped usher in the era of modern biology in the United States.

Source: http://www.huh.harvard.edu/libraries/Gray_Bicent/images/gray_1325.jpg

Asa Gray made his commitment to Christ in 1835, a few years after completing medical school (much like Francis Collins of our own era). ³ As a professing Christian, Gray was a committed churchgoer and member of a local congregation in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As a professional scientist, he insisted that science was neutral in matters of religion and metaphysics. Gray found evolutionary theory incredibly stimulating to his scientific research, but never found it threatening to his faith. Both before and after reading Origin of Species, Gray remained firmly grounded in the Nicene Creed, a profession of faith that Christians have shared since the early Church. ⁴

What happened when Origin of Species burst onto the scene? Gray’s extensive research on American and Japanese plants—which he published after corresponding with Charles Darwin—had already convinced him that species and genera found in both countries resulted from common ancestry, not separate creations. He responded to Darwin’s book by writing the first major review⁵ of Origin on his side of the Atlantic, and he defended Darwin’s scientific theory in a series of meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1859 and 1860. Gray was determined that Origin would get a fair reading from the scientific community, and he even took a leading role in negotiations to reprint Origin in the United States in 1860, ensuring that Americans could have the most accurate edition in their hands.

Regarding the theological implications of evolution, Gray believed that Darwin’s theory was not atheistic, although he recognized that some would use it as an “excuse” for unbelief. Henceforth, he concluded, we need “to reshape” the argument from design “in such wise as to harmonize our ineradicable belief in design with the fundamental scientific belief of continuity in nature, now extended to organic as well as inorganic forms, to living beings as well as inanimate things.” The question of whether or not life evolves should not be confused with the issue of God’s existence. Instead, Gray thought that each issue should be investigated using methods appropriate to the subject of inquiry. His refusal to argue for either extreme in this contentious debate upset both anti-evolutionists and radical popularizers of science, both of whom were eager to believe that evolution implied atheism.⁶

See How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?

Early Theological Concerns with Evolution

In the decades after Origin of Species was published, theologians began to ponder the compatibility of Darwin’s theory and Christian doctrine. Some of them adopted Gray’s view that evolution was God’s method of creation.⁷ Others argued that since Darwin explained away the apparent design in nature, it was compatible only with atheism.⁸ Some scholars accepted Darwin’s argument for common ancestry, but rejected the idea of natural selection, either for scientific, philosophical, or theological reasons.⁹ Others resisted evolution specifically for the human species, partly due to concerns that evolution could conflict with Christian claims that human beings are created in the image of God.¹⁰

See How could humans have evolved and still be created in the "Image of God"?

With time, however, even some of the more conservative theologians became comfortable with evolution. B.B. Warfield, for instance, developed a powerful and enduring legacy in American evangelicalism for his belief that the Bible communicates revelation from God entirely without error. Yet while he defended biblical inerrancy, Warfield was also a cautious proponent of the possibility that God could have brought about life through evolution. His basic stance was a doctrine of providence that saw God working in and with the processes of nature, rather than completely replacing them. In Warfield’s mind, a high view of biblical authority was fully compatible with a divinely guided process of evolution.¹¹

Rise of Young Earth Creationism

Although many Christians were concerned about the implications they found in Darwin’s theory of evolution, by the end of the nineteenth century very few Christian authors argued for a young earth. Enthusiasm for this was largely confined to the Seventh-day Adventists, who followed the writings of their founding prophet, Ellen G. White. She claimed to have seen the creation of the earth in a vision from God. In another vision, God revealed to her that Noah’s flood produced the fossil record.¹² Early Adventists thus explained the geological data found in the early nineteenth century with their interpretation of the flood story of Genesis 6-8.

Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Christians wrote a large collection of papers titled The Fundamentals.¹³ They clarified the beliefs of conservative Christians intent on preserving the faith from the threats of their time. Interestingly, The Fundamentals put no emphasis on Noah’s flood as an explanation of geological data and the contributors accepted an old earth. Even William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist who crusaded against the teaching of evolution in public schools, accepted an old earth.

Nevertheless, the modern Creationist campaign gained traction as an anti-evolution movement in the decades that followed. The 100th anniversary of Darwin’s publication in 1959 brought with it a cry from academics to make the public more aware of Darwin’s theory. Around the same time, the federal government funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which produced a series of textbooks that taught evolution without reservation. Many conservative Christians at the time saw this as an attempt to “ram evolution down the throats of children.”¹⁴

As if in response to this outcry, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris updated Adventist flood geology in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications.¹⁵ Whitcomb and Morris gave an explanation for how Noah’s flood could account for the geological evidence for an older earth. Soon after, small groups of conservative Christian scientists began to form in support of this research. They came to be known as Young Earth Creationists and referred to their flood geology as scientific creationism. The movement continued to grow, and by the 1970s the term “Creationism” increasingly came to mean only the narrow belief that God created in 6 days and the earth is young, not the larger, foundational belief that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, regardless of the time scale involved.

Conclusion

Going back to the original publication of Origin of Species in 1859, we have seen that the original Christian reception of Darwin’s theory was not universally hostile, and that Asa Gray even found it scientifically insightful. With his faith firmly grounded in the creeds of the early church, Gray conducted brilliant scientific research and maintained an unwavering commitment to Christ.

It was actually not until the second half of the 20^th century that Young Earth Creationism became a mainstream view within the evangelical community. Knowing this, many Christians today have decided to stop perpetuating a “war” with science. Prominent scholars like Asa Gray and BB Warfield demonstrate that it is indeed possible to maintain a high view of scripture and accept scientific evidence of evolution.