I. Introductory Remarks: Do they conflict?
Yes, and so much worse for the Bible because science knows better.
Yes, and so much worse for science. It is typically biased and true science takes its
cues from the Bible.
No, these two address fundamentally different aspects of reality.
No, they overlap and speak in unison (concordists or harmonizers)
On Faith, Reason, and Apologetics
A. Though Christianity as a worldview has more going for it than any other out
there, we misrepresent the cogency of Christian worldview by suggesting it is
a slam-dunk once we know the relevant facts, concepts, and arguments.
B. Naturalism functions the same way- it is no slam-dunk (nor, in our view, is
even capable at the free throw line).
C. There is too much unknown for pure rationalism to have it all completely
figured out and too much revealed not to think critically about anything.
D. Pure rationalism AND blind irrationalism can lead to idolatry.
The truth about apologetics lies somewhere in the middle. It is neither a slam-dunk
method for compelling faith nor a feeble method with no purchase on faith… Viewed
rhetorically, apologetics is about persuasion- persuading people that the truths
proclaimed in the
E. The New Testament illustrates a "Believe because ________" structure.
1. John 14:11
2. Acts 2:32
3. Acts 17:28
F. The reasons given help support faith but is never quiet enough to mandate faith
1. Isaiah 45:15
2. Romans 1:18-20
G. Skeptics, it seem, are not satisfied even if God made himself more obvious.
H. Scientism, however, is guilty of stacking the deck so that the very possibility of
miracles is ruled out from the start.
III. The Compatibility of Science and the Bible
A. The Christian Roots of Modern Science
1. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and James Maxwell, all
venerated the Bible and were the founders of modern
science.
2. Stanly Jaki suggests that the worldview of the Bible explains
the universe as invention and therefore contingent
(dependent on an outside designer), leading to
experimentation and the alleviation of armchair philosophy.
3. Current numbers of atheists scientists do not prove that these
two things are incompatible either.
B. The Bible as a Non-Scientific text
1. The Bible tends not to address scientific topics directly and
thus avoids the degree of specificity that could get it into
scientific trouble.
2. "The Scripture principally teach what man is to believe
concerning God and what duty God requires of man"
3. What of the Bible's peculiarities?
1. It is antique
2. It contains phenomenological and realistic uses of
language
3. It assumes supernaturalism
4. Authorial intent
C. The Antiquity of the Bible and Face-Value Meaning
1. The Bible is an old book written by people in culture distinct
from our own
2. As a result, we need to read it charitably, attempting to
understand its claims on its own terms.
3. The Bible is not always making face-value propositions
D. The Bible's use of Phenomenological language
1. Biblical writers did not distinguish between appearance and
reality with quite the same obsessiveness that we do.
2. Their language tends to focus more on appearance and
theological significance that on underlying reality.
3. Phenomenological priority sees the world presented via
phenomena
4. Realistic language, which purports to get at the underlying
reality
E. Naturalism & Miracles
1. Miracles are real battleground
2. The God who created nature and governs it via normative laws
is free to intervene in nature in ways that are not normative as
one outside of creation.
3. Examples of this are not unreasonable or capricious- there is a
method to his madness. Laws of nature, are not supreme, God
is.
4. Naturalism and Pelagianism
F. The Primacy of Text or authorial intent in interpretation
1. science is hermeneutic and stresses the primary of the text
over authorial intention.
2. Locutions vs. illocutions.
3. The bible is God's special revelation to humanity; nature is
God's general revelation to humanity. Theology explains one;
science the other.
IV. When Science and Theology Conflict
A. Genesis teaches creation Ex Nihilo
1. Either God created the universe, or it popped into existence
from nothing.
2. Those in favor of the latter argue that the universe might have
arisen through a separation of energy
1. When Dawkins and others look to science to
explain the origin of the universe, they commit
logical error
2. Science presupposes a casual nexus operating by
natural laws.
3. Therefore, science presupposes the very thing that
Dawkins claims it is trying to explain
4. This is circular.
B. Genesis teaches that the earth and universe are only thousands of years
old
1. Most interpreters of the Bible historically took the earth and
universe to be less than 10,000 years old until recently
2. However, some believe there is compelling evidence for the
earth to be much older, perhaps alleviating this conflict
C. Created with Care of Evolution
1. The evidence for macro-evolution, even against scientific
standards, is weak and tenuous at best
2. The Bible teaches something far different
1. After their kind
2. Genesis 1:25-27
V. Conclusion
A. Science is not a juggernaut but an interconnected web of factual and
theoretical claims about the world that are constantly in need of revision
and for which changes in one portion of the web can induce far-reaching
changes in another.
B. As a result, Christians ought not be intimidated by science.
C. This is God's world. He created it. He gave us minds to understand it
D. But that understanding, especially on scientific matters, is fallible and
constantly requires critical scrutiny.
