Christians Have, At Times, Been Obstacles
Anaxagoras
It is very common to hear people assert or insinuate that religion, and Christianity in particular, has been an obstacle in the way of the progress of science. Sometimes, Christianity is spoken of as a formidable enemy. The argument is that Christians stifle science by telling the scientist that the questions he has striven to settle by observation and reason have already been determined, once for all, by the infallible authority of the Bible.
These allegations are not entirely untrue, or mere fabrication. There are facts on which they have been founded, regardless of any mistakes or exaggerations that are included in their interpretation. Religion has from time to time frowned upon, denounced, and proscribed (forbidden) the legitimate pursuits, researches, arguments, and hypotheses of physical inquirers. This attitude is not specifically unique to Christianity. Even before Christ, science faced religious persecution.
Anaxagoras was arraigned before an Athenian court for “holding impious physical doctrine”. He held the heretical belief that the sun was an incandescent stone, larger than Peloponnesus. The only reason he retained his life was due to the friendship and eloquence of Pericles.
These allegations are not entirely untrue, or mere fabrication. There are facts on which they have been founded, regardless of any mistakes or exaggerations that are included in their interpretation. Religion has from time to time frowned upon, denounced, and proscribed (forbidden) the legitimate pursuits, researches, arguments, and hypotheses of physical inquirers. This attitude is not specifically unique to Christianity. Even before Christ, science faced religious persecution.
Anaxagoras was arraigned before an Athenian court for “holding impious physical doctrine”. He held the heretical belief that the sun was an incandescent stone, larger than Peloponnesus. The only reason he retained his life was due to the friendship and eloquence of Pericles.
|
In the Christian era, students who were (whether in the hope of transmuting the baser metals into gold or for some better reason) interested in chemical experiments were suspected of having entered into a league with the devil.
Even Albert the Great, the teacher of Aquinas, who enjoyed the study of chemistry, did not wholly escape this dangerous suspicion. |
Albert the Great
|
Roger Bacon
|
Later, Roger Bacon had more to endure from the same type of accusations. The principle source of frustration he caused was his insistence on the use of empirical methods as opposed to blind faith in the church fathers and his willingness to learn even from Muslim and Jewish scholars like Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides.
|
Galileo's Case
Galileo Galilei
Still later stands the memorable case of Galileo. Galileo was an Italian scientist and philosopher who played a pivotal role in the Scientific Revolution. He ran into trouble with the papacy when he championed Copernicanism, the belief that the solar system revolved around the sun (known as heliocentrism) as opposed to around the Earth (known as geocentrism). For this, he was denounced to the Roman Inquisition in 1615. The Catholic Church formally condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Scripture” in February of 1616. Later, when Galileo tried to defend his views in “Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems” in 1632, he was again tried by the Inquisition, forced to recant, and spent the remainder of his days under house arrest.
Sure, this Florentine astronomer was imprudent in the advocacy of his doctrines, and he showed temerity in venturing to discuss the biblical applications of his discoveries, instead of leaving the interpretations to the authorized mouthpieces of the Church. However, these are no excuse for the enormous wrong of the organized, unrelenting endeavor to suppress the publication of important scientific truth. The men involved were guilty of not “loving the truth.”[1] They were unwilling to heed the biblical command to “learn from the heavens.”[2] They were not humble concerning either their understanding of the Holy Scriptures or science.[3] Worse, they caused an old man to perjure himself[4] by abjuring beliefs which his accusers and persecutors knew that in his heart he really held.
[1] Psalm 15:2
[2] Romans 10:18; Psalm 19:1-4
[3] Proverbs 18:15
[4] Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:14
Sure, this Florentine astronomer was imprudent in the advocacy of his doctrines, and he showed temerity in venturing to discuss the biblical applications of his discoveries, instead of leaving the interpretations to the authorized mouthpieces of the Church. However, these are no excuse for the enormous wrong of the organized, unrelenting endeavor to suppress the publication of important scientific truth. The men involved were guilty of not “loving the truth.”[1] They were unwilling to heed the biblical command to “learn from the heavens.”[2] They were not humble concerning either their understanding of the Holy Scriptures or science.[3] Worse, they caused an old man to perjure himself[4] by abjuring beliefs which his accusers and persecutors knew that in his heart he really held.
[1] Psalm 15:2
[2] Romans 10:18; Psalm 19:1-4
[3] Proverbs 18:15
[4] Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:14
Protestant Treatment of Geology
Protestantism, on its part, also must acknowledge that the same sort of mistake has been made. From the first rise of geology, down to modern times, the students of this branch of science have had to fight their way against an opposition conducted in the name of religion and of the Bible. They were charged with a presumptuous attempt to contravene the plain teaching of revelation. Cowper, in satirizing the dreams and delusions which get hold of the minds of men, castigates those who:
“Drill and bore
The solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date to Moses,
was mistaken in its age.”[1]
There is no doubt that this amiable poet intended to pour scorn on the theory that the globe is more than about six thousand years old, a theory then novel, but now nearly universally accepted. The geologists were supposedly flying in the face of Moses: they were audaciously setting up their pretended record, dug out of the earth, against the Creator’s own testimony, given in the Scriptures. How arrogant could they possibly be? How many pulpits thundered their denunciation of these atheistic geological lies!
[1] The Task and Other Poems, Book III, The Garden (1785)
“Drill and bore
The solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date to Moses,
was mistaken in its age.”[1]
There is no doubt that this amiable poet intended to pour scorn on the theory that the globe is more than about six thousand years old, a theory then novel, but now nearly universally accepted. The geologists were supposedly flying in the face of Moses: they were audaciously setting up their pretended record, dug out of the earth, against the Creator’s own testimony, given in the Scriptures. How arrogant could they possibly be? How many pulpits thundered their denunciation of these atheistic geological lies!
[1] The Task and Other Poems, Book III, The Garden (1785)
Origin of the Young Earth Theory
Bishop Ussher
Let’s take a minute and examine the origin of the young earth theory. A 17th century Anglican archbishop in Ireland by the name of James Ussher is the one who formulated a chronology of the world based on what he understood to be a literal reading of the Bible. His work’s name was “Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the origins of the world”.
After carefully listing all the births and deaths he found in the Old Covenant, he came up with the surprisingly specific conclusion that the creation process began the nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.
After carefully listing all the births and deaths he found in the Old Covenant, he came up with the surprisingly specific conclusion that the creation process began the nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.
Problem With Bishop Ussher's Approach
Annals by Archbishop Ussher
On the first page of Annals Ussher wrote:
“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.”
He began with the hypothesis that the Earth could not last longer than 6,000 years (4,000 before and 2,000 after Christ) He based this on the six “days” of Creation on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”[1]
There are several problems with Bishop Ussher’s methodology that inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions:
(1) The chronologies he used jump entire generations or multiple generations, emphasizing only those people that are useful to the ongoing story of Yahweh’s interaction with humanity. There were three major periods that Ussher had to treat, each with their own difficulties to deal with.
a. Early times (creation to Solomon). This would seem to be the easiest since we are given an unbroken lineage from Adam through Solomon. However, there are substantial differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint that shed doubt on the chronology.
b. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Beit ha Mikdash). Here we have NO lineage; only a list of kings with overlaps and ambiguities clouding the issue.
c. Late Age of Kings (Ezra/Nehemiah to Jesus). Here we have no biblical information at all. The only way to identify anything is through extrabiblical records of other culture’s kings. These present their OWN difficulties because they are either not honest, not complete or give legendary origins or lifespans to their kings.
(2) At that time, many thought that Creation would have taken place in the spring because that was the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean, and other culture’s chronologies. Ussher disagreed, and felt it must have taken place in autumn because that is when the Jewish calendar begins. Either way, the choice was arbitrary and not founded on any specific scientific or theological statement. It was simply a matter of personal preference.
(3) A third problem is that Mr. Ussher missed the Apostle’s point. The point Peter was making in 2 Peter 3:8 was that for God, as a transcendent being, linear time is irrelevant. Note that the equation works both ways. One day = one thousand years and one thousand years = one day. Why didn’t he choose the second half as opposed to the first? This arbitrary choice that set aside the principle point the apostle was making has led many to bring ridicule upon the Church.
[1] 2 Peter 3:8
“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.”
He began with the hypothesis that the Earth could not last longer than 6,000 years (4,000 before and 2,000 after Christ) He based this on the six “days” of Creation on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”[1]
There are several problems with Bishop Ussher’s methodology that inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions:
(1) The chronologies he used jump entire generations or multiple generations, emphasizing only those people that are useful to the ongoing story of Yahweh’s interaction with humanity. There were three major periods that Ussher had to treat, each with their own difficulties to deal with.
a. Early times (creation to Solomon). This would seem to be the easiest since we are given an unbroken lineage from Adam through Solomon. However, there are substantial differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint that shed doubt on the chronology.
b. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Beit ha Mikdash). Here we have NO lineage; only a list of kings with overlaps and ambiguities clouding the issue.
c. Late Age of Kings (Ezra/Nehemiah to Jesus). Here we have no biblical information at all. The only way to identify anything is through extrabiblical records of other culture’s kings. These present their OWN difficulties because they are either not honest, not complete or give legendary origins or lifespans to their kings.
(2) At that time, many thought that Creation would have taken place in the spring because that was the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean, and other culture’s chronologies. Ussher disagreed, and felt it must have taken place in autumn because that is when the Jewish calendar begins. Either way, the choice was arbitrary and not founded on any specific scientific or theological statement. It was simply a matter of personal preference.
(3) A third problem is that Mr. Ussher missed the Apostle’s point. The point Peter was making in 2 Peter 3:8 was that for God, as a transcendent being, linear time is irrelevant. Note that the equation works both ways. One day = one thousand years and one thousand years = one day. Why didn’t he choose the second half as opposed to the first? This arbitrary choice that set aside the principle point the apostle was making has led many to bring ridicule upon the Church.
[1] 2 Peter 3:8
How the "Young Earth" Idea Spread Through Protestantism
So, regardless of one’s scientific view, from a strictly theological or hermeneutic point of view, Bishop Ussher’s methodology was riddled with problems and should not be taken seriously. It may literally be regarded as an accident that his view even became as widespread as it did. In his day, two other men, Scalinger and Bede, had also developed competing “chronologies” and had widespread audiences. However, the enormously influential King James Version began to include Ussher’s chronology which is actually fairly surprising, seeing as Ussher only relied on the Bible for about 1/6 of his work.
Because of its association with the KJV, it later became a part of the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible whose author had his own problems. He was forced to resign from the U.S. attorney’s office due to questionable financial transactions and was jailed for forgery. He was an alcoholic who abandoned his wife and two daughters. His first wife justifiably sought a divorce and Scofield began courting his second wife before the divorce was even finalized. They married three months after it was.
Some may argue that these things happened before his conversion, but may I point out that his divorce was finalized at least four years AFTER he made a profession of faith? That means that he willfully abandoned his wife and did not seek reconciliation with her and then wrongfully remarried well after his conversion. He subsequently refused to help support his ex-wife and daughter even though 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a man who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel.
He began to falsely refer to himself as “Doctor” Scofield in 1892 though he had earned no such title. Even most of the events surrounding his so-called conversion have been proven false which causes a wise person to question whether or not he was even saved!
On August 27, 1881, two years after his supposed conversion, the Topekan newspaper called the Daily Capital had this to say about Mr. Scofield:
“The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.
Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious…”
He had stolen his mother-in-law’s last $1,300 in a time when the average income for a woman was $54.50 a year and a man’s was a whopping $71.40 a year. He had stolen nearly 24 years of income from a widow.
In direct violation of 1Timothy 3:2-4, he was ordained as a minister and even became the pastor of Moody church in Chicago! His fame is what pushed the sales of his Bible, which sold the erroneous young earth view to tens of thousands of Christians all over the world. The people who overlooked his poor character and ordained him will have much to answer for at the Bimah seat!
There is a logical fallacy called ad hominem abusive which is essentially insulting or belittling one’s opponent rather than actually dealing with his argument. This is fallacious because even true negative facts about his personal character are largely irrelevant to the logical merits of his point of view.
By bringing these issues up in the case of Mr. Scofield, are we guilty of this particular fallacy? Not in the case of theology. 1 Timothy, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5 all point out the necessity of excellent character in an elder or teacher of doctrine. Mr. Scofield violated the following nine positive traits required in an elder.
1. Proud[10]
2. Dishonest[11]
3. Unholy[12]
4. Greedy[13]
5. Addicted[14]
Just as you cannot have a person teach math who cannot do math, you cannot have a man teach theology who apparently does not know God. Mr. Scofield was not qualified to be an elder thus he was not properly authorized to teach in Christ’s church. He is to be considered a false teacher who taught for his own gain (1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Peter 2:14). In regards to such men, the Scriptures command the following:
In his defense, unlike C.I. Scofield, Bishop Ussher was not a wicked man. He represented the flower of theological scholarship of his day and he did the best he could with the materials he had before him. Simply put, he was a well-meaning man who was led astray by his false assumptions. The ones who should be judged are the ones who have good science and better theology in front of them and still refuse to acknowledge their errors. [1] 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:23
[2] 1 Tim. 3:7
[3] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8-9; Titus 1:6
[4] Gal. 5:13-14, 22
[5] Titus 1:8
[6] 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6
[7] 1 Tim. 3:4, 12
[8] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8; Titus 1:7
[9] Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:22
[10] (Boastful Gal. 5:26; Haughty Pro. 6:17; Reviler 1 Cor. 6:10; Overbearing Titus 1:7)
[11] (Deceitful Pro. 6:17; False witness Pro. 6:19; Liar 1 Tim. 1:10; Perjurer 1 Tim. 1:10)
[12] (Unholy 1 Tim. 1:9; Profane 1 Tim. 1:9; Ungodly 1 Tim. 1:9; Quick to sin Pro. 6:18)
[13] (Lover of money 1 Tim. 3:3; Pursuing dishonest gain 1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:9; Thief 1 Cor. 6:10; Covetous 1 Cor. 6:10; Swindler 1 Cor. 6:10)
[14] (Addicted 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:10; Carousing Gal. 5:21; Sensual; Immoral Gal. 5:19; 1 Tim. 1:10; Impure Gal. 5:19; Sensual Gal. 5:19; Adulterer 1 Cor. 6:9)
[15] Princeton professor William Henry Green; conservative theologian B.B. Warfield among many others.
Because of its association with the KJV, it later became a part of the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible whose author had his own problems. He was forced to resign from the U.S. attorney’s office due to questionable financial transactions and was jailed for forgery. He was an alcoholic who abandoned his wife and two daughters. His first wife justifiably sought a divorce and Scofield began courting his second wife before the divorce was even finalized. They married three months after it was.
Some may argue that these things happened before his conversion, but may I point out that his divorce was finalized at least four years AFTER he made a profession of faith? That means that he willfully abandoned his wife and did not seek reconciliation with her and then wrongfully remarried well after his conversion. He subsequently refused to help support his ex-wife and daughter even though 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a man who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel.
He began to falsely refer to himself as “Doctor” Scofield in 1892 though he had earned no such title. Even most of the events surrounding his so-called conversion have been proven false which causes a wise person to question whether or not he was even saved!
On August 27, 1881, two years after his supposed conversion, the Topekan newspaper called the Daily Capital had this to say about Mr. Scofield:
“The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.
Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious…”
He had stolen his mother-in-law’s last $1,300 in a time when the average income for a woman was $54.50 a year and a man’s was a whopping $71.40 a year. He had stolen nearly 24 years of income from a widow.
In direct violation of 1Timothy 3:2-4, he was ordained as a minister and even became the pastor of Moody church in Chicago! His fame is what pushed the sales of his Bible, which sold the erroneous young earth view to tens of thousands of Christians all over the world. The people who overlooked his poor character and ordained him will have much to answer for at the Bimah seat!
There is a logical fallacy called ad hominem abusive which is essentially insulting or belittling one’s opponent rather than actually dealing with his argument. This is fallacious because even true negative facts about his personal character are largely irrelevant to the logical merits of his point of view.
By bringing these issues up in the case of Mr. Scofield, are we guilty of this particular fallacy? Not in the case of theology. 1 Timothy, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5 all point out the necessity of excellent character in an elder or teacher of doctrine. Mr. Scofield violated the following nine positive traits required in an elder.
- Self-controlled / disciplined[1]
- Good reputation with outsiders[2]
- Above reproach / respectable[3]
- Serves others in love[4]
- Upright / holy[5]
- Married to one wife[6]
- Manages family well[7]
- Temperate[8]
- Loves what is good[9]
1. Proud[10]
2. Dishonest[11]
3. Unholy[12]
4. Greedy[13]
5. Addicted[14]
Just as you cannot have a person teach math who cannot do math, you cannot have a man teach theology who apparently does not know God. Mr. Scofield was not qualified to be an elder thus he was not properly authorized to teach in Christ’s church. He is to be considered a false teacher who taught for his own gain (1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Peter 2:14). In regards to such men, the Scriptures command the following:
- We are to MARK them and AVOID them. (Romans 16:17; 2 Timothy 3:5)
- We are to SEPARATE from them (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).
- We are to KEEP AWAY from them (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
- We are to REBUKE them (Titus 1:13).
- We are to REJECT heretics (Titus 3:10).
- We are to TRY them (1 John 4:1).
- We are NOT to RECEIVE them (2 John 1:10-11).
In his defense, unlike C.I. Scofield, Bishop Ussher was not a wicked man. He represented the flower of theological scholarship of his day and he did the best he could with the materials he had before him. Simply put, he was a well-meaning man who was led astray by his false assumptions. The ones who should be judged are the ones who have good science and better theology in front of them and still refuse to acknowledge their errors. [1] 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:23
[2] 1 Tim. 3:7
[3] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8-9; Titus 1:6
[4] Gal. 5:13-14, 22
[5] Titus 1:8
[6] 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6
[7] 1 Tim. 3:4, 12
[8] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8; Titus 1:7
[9] Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:22
[10] (Boastful Gal. 5:26; Haughty Pro. 6:17; Reviler 1 Cor. 6:10; Overbearing Titus 1:7)
[11] (Deceitful Pro. 6:17; False witness Pro. 6:19; Liar 1 Tim. 1:10; Perjurer 1 Tim. 1:10)
[12] (Unholy 1 Tim. 1:9; Profane 1 Tim. 1:9; Ungodly 1 Tim. 1:9; Quick to sin Pro. 6:18)
[13] (Lover of money 1 Tim. 3:3; Pursuing dishonest gain 1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:9; Thief 1 Cor. 6:10; Covetous 1 Cor. 6:10; Swindler 1 Cor. 6:10)
[14] (Addicted 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:10; Carousing Gal. 5:21; Sensual; Immoral Gal. 5:19; 1 Tim. 1:10; Impure Gal. 5:19; Sensual Gal. 5:19; Adulterer 1 Cor. 6:9)
[15] Princeton professor William Henry Green; conservative theologian B.B. Warfield among many others.
PICK UP WITH "THE CAUSES OF INTOLERANCE" ON P.16 OF APOLOGIA
Do You Believe in the "Big Bang"?
The relativism of time
It is interesting to note that in physics time is always measured from the point of view of the observer. Tell me – who was present at creation? Certainly not man! In fact, the planet itself was not formed until “day” three. So how do we understand “evening and morning day…” when there was no planet, no horizon over which the sun could set or rise? Time (up until “day” three at least) must be measured by the observer and that observer was God.
The style of writing and presentation in the first two chapters of Genesis are utterly different than all the other styles in the entire Bible. Once we reach chapter three, “biblical time” and “historical time” coincide quite nicely. But those first two chapters are notoriously controversial. My contention is that if we understand the relativism of time as it is measured by the observer then the entire issue goes away.
Physics teaches that there are two distinct phases to time: linear time (time as we experience it) and block time. In theology we also believe that there is a difference in how time flows in God’s immanent state and in His transcendent state. God’s transcendent sense of time is strangely similar to the way block time is described.
How does this relate to the issue of the Big Bang theory that is given to us by the Standard Theory? Let’s examine the biblical account, compare and contrast it to the Standard Theory and see what comes up.
Day One:
Fluctuation – The Bible further describes the initial condition of the universe as being characterized by the Spirit of God “hovering”. This word in Hebrew (rachaph; Strong’s #7363) literally means “to tremble, shake or vibrate”. How interesting that modern physics describes the initial impetus of the Big Bang as being a “quantum fluctuation.”
Sonic wave – The Scriptures say that the universe was begun with a sound – the sound of God’s voice. Physicists recently determined that the Big Bang was characterized by acoustic waves approximately 50 octaves below the threshold of human hearing. The chord is somewhere between a major and a minor third. When brought up the requisite number of octaves so that we can perceive it, it sounds rather like a hissing roar.[1] Go through the Bible and see how many times God’s voice is described as the sound of many waters or as a roar and then think about how far ahead of its time the Word actually is!
Energy spike – Moses said that everything began suddenly with a great spike of energy that he refers to as light. But ancient Jewish commentators like Maimonides and Nahamihud taught that because the word for light here (or; Strong’s #52) is also used for things like fire, life or lightning, it was not to be understood as merely that which falls within the human visible spectrum but that it was to be better understood as energy.
Plasma – The Bible says that our universe originally took some kind of watery shape. Standard theory claims that at its very beginning the universe was a lot like a thick hot soup. Even today over 99% of the universe takes the form of plasma, a unique condition where energy runs freely and acts in many ways like a liquid.
Day Two:
Accretion of matter - Then chapter one describes the energy as being in a liquid state and coalescing in space creating semi solid areas divided by spaces. Sounds like matter beginning to accrete to me!
Day Three:
Day Four:
Day Five:
Day Six:
We must note, however, one subtle difference. All of these forms of life reproduce “after their own kind.” This is a serious difference between the biblical view and the current evolutionary view. As a Christian I must believe that all life was created to reproduce after its own kind. I believe in great evolutionary changes, both natural and artificial. After all, look at the continual mutations of viruses. Observe the resistance to our poisons that insects are able to develop. Consider the man-made difference in dogs: they range from the teacup Chihuahua to the Mastiff! However, a dog is a dog is a dog. We’ve not been able to make an animal so different that it no longer was able to breed with others of its own species. Every time we reach that barrier and try to cross it, they become sterile. Again – the Bible and science agree.
No – the unique difference is in our spirituality. Our ability to sense and communicate with God. Therein lies the great difference. And when we deny that capability, when we say like the fool in Psalms “there is no God” we descend to the state of animals.
Conclusion
Do I believe in six literal days of creation? Yes. But literal days as measured on Mars are different from literal days as measured on Earth. Days as measured by the universe are yet another thing entirely!
Do I believe in an evolutionary process? Yes. But I believe that the evolutionary process does not cross the boundaries of species. I believe in a meddling, tweaking, fiddling God who created - not just once, but continuously. I believe in an Artist who designed His work to be constantly changing and growing – not just humans but all of creation.
Whether you believe in fiat creationism ex nihilo or in theistic evolution or progressive creationism or simple evolutionary processes, the fact remains that behind it all is God. The question of how He chose to create is simply not as important as the question of why He created. Answer the first and you simply have an interesting theory. Answer the second and you have a life-changing metaphysical outlook!
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun. - Psalms 19:2-4 HCSB
[1] If you’d actually like to hear this sound go to http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html
It is interesting to note that in physics time is always measured from the point of view of the observer. Tell me – who was present at creation? Certainly not man! In fact, the planet itself was not formed until “day” three. So how do we understand “evening and morning day…” when there was no planet, no horizon over which the sun could set or rise? Time (up until “day” three at least) must be measured by the observer and that observer was God.
The style of writing and presentation in the first two chapters of Genesis are utterly different than all the other styles in the entire Bible. Once we reach chapter three, “biblical time” and “historical time” coincide quite nicely. But those first two chapters are notoriously controversial. My contention is that if we understand the relativism of time as it is measured by the observer then the entire issue goes away.
Physics teaches that there are two distinct phases to time: linear time (time as we experience it) and block time. In theology we also believe that there is a difference in how time flows in God’s immanent state and in His transcendent state. God’s transcendent sense of time is strangely similar to the way block time is described.
- Psalms 90:4 HCSB For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by, like a few hours of the night.
- 2 Peter 3:8 HCSB Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day.
How does this relate to the issue of the Big Bang theory that is given to us by the Standard Theory? Let’s examine the biblical account, compare and contrast it to the Standard Theory and see what comes up.
Day One:
- Genesis 1:1-5 HCSB In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (3) Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came, and then morning: the first day.
Fluctuation – The Bible further describes the initial condition of the universe as being characterized by the Spirit of God “hovering”. This word in Hebrew (rachaph; Strong’s #7363) literally means “to tremble, shake or vibrate”. How interesting that modern physics describes the initial impetus of the Big Bang as being a “quantum fluctuation.”
Sonic wave – The Scriptures say that the universe was begun with a sound – the sound of God’s voice. Physicists recently determined that the Big Bang was characterized by acoustic waves approximately 50 octaves below the threshold of human hearing. The chord is somewhere between a major and a minor third. When brought up the requisite number of octaves so that we can perceive it, it sounds rather like a hissing roar.[1] Go through the Bible and see how many times God’s voice is described as the sound of many waters or as a roar and then think about how far ahead of its time the Word actually is!
Energy spike – Moses said that everything began suddenly with a great spike of energy that he refers to as light. But ancient Jewish commentators like Maimonides and Nahamihud taught that because the word for light here (or; Strong’s #52) is also used for things like fire, life or lightning, it was not to be understood as merely that which falls within the human visible spectrum but that it was to be better understood as energy.
Plasma – The Bible says that our universe originally took some kind of watery shape. Standard theory claims that at its very beginning the universe was a lot like a thick hot soup. Even today over 99% of the universe takes the form of plasma, a unique condition where energy runs freely and acts in many ways like a liquid.
Day Two:
- Genesis 1:6-8 HCSB Then God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water." (7) So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above the expanse. And it was so. (8) God called the expanse "sky." Evening came, and then morning: the second day.
Accretion of matter - Then chapter one describes the energy as being in a liquid state and coalescing in space creating semi solid areas divided by spaces. Sounds like matter beginning to accrete to me!
Day Three:
- Genesis 1:9-10 HCSB Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. (10) God called the dry land "earth," and He called the gathering of the water "seas." And God saw that it was good.
- Genesis 1:11-13 HCSB Then God said, "Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds." And it was so. (12) The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (13) Evening came, and then morning: the third day.
Day Four:
- Genesis 1:14-19 HCSB Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. (15) They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth." And it was so. (16) God made the two great lights--the greater light to have dominion over the day and the lesser light to have dominion over the night--as well as the stars. (17) God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth, (18) to dominate the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. (19) Evening came, and then morning: the fourth day.
Day Five:
- Genesis 1:20-23 HCSB Then God said, "Let the water swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." (21) So God created the large sea-creatures and every living creature that moves and swarms in the water, according to their kinds. He also created every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (22) So God blessed them, "Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth." (23) Evening came, and then morning: the fifth day.
Day Six:
- Genesis 1:24-25 HCSB Then God said, "Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. (25) So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
We must note, however, one subtle difference. All of these forms of life reproduce “after their own kind.” This is a serious difference between the biblical view and the current evolutionary view. As a Christian I must believe that all life was created to reproduce after its own kind. I believe in great evolutionary changes, both natural and artificial. After all, look at the continual mutations of viruses. Observe the resistance to our poisons that insects are able to develop. Consider the man-made difference in dogs: they range from the teacup Chihuahua to the Mastiff! However, a dog is a dog is a dog. We’ve not been able to make an animal so different that it no longer was able to breed with others of its own species. Every time we reach that barrier and try to cross it, they become sterile. Again – the Bible and science agree.
- Genesis 1:26-27 HCSB Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth." (27) So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female.
No – the unique difference is in our spirituality. Our ability to sense and communicate with God. Therein lies the great difference. And when we deny that capability, when we say like the fool in Psalms “there is no God” we descend to the state of animals.
Conclusion
Do I believe in six literal days of creation? Yes. But literal days as measured on Mars are different from literal days as measured on Earth. Days as measured by the universe are yet another thing entirely!
Do I believe in an evolutionary process? Yes. But I believe that the evolutionary process does not cross the boundaries of species. I believe in a meddling, tweaking, fiddling God who created - not just once, but continuously. I believe in an Artist who designed His work to be constantly changing and growing – not just humans but all of creation.
Whether you believe in fiat creationism ex nihilo or in theistic evolution or progressive creationism or simple evolutionary processes, the fact remains that behind it all is God. The question of how He chose to create is simply not as important as the question of why He created. Answer the first and you simply have an interesting theory. Answer the second and you have a life-changing metaphysical outlook!
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun. - Psalms 19:2-4 HCSB
[1] If you’d actually like to hear this sound go to http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html
Were There Dinosaurs According to the Scriptures?
Descriptions of dinosaurs can be found in Job 40:15-24; 41:1-34. In the passage the word “behemoth” means simply, “huge beast,” and many old school commentators commonly take it to be either an elephant or a hippopotamus. The subsequent description, however, fits neither of these, nor any other living animal. On the other hand, it does seem to match the probable description of a great land dinosaur, such as the tyrannosaurus. For instance, no elephant or hippo has a tail like a cedar.
In 40:19 the behemoth was the “chief” of all created land animals, which lends itself to the theory that this may have been one of the great land dinosaurs. Even we “moderns” refer to the tyrannosaurus as “Rex” (Latin for king).
These, like all other animals, were created on the fifth and sixth days of the creation “week”, which leads to a whole other set of questions.
“Leviathan” was evidently the greatest of the marine reptiles, or dinosaurs, something like a plesiosaur, perhaps, although modern commentators tend to call it a crocodile. Isaiah says that leviathan was “the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1), and the psalmist said that leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (Psalm 104:25-26).
Whatever the leviathan was, it was not a crocodile. Some descendants survived to and beyond Job’s day, giving rise to all the traditions of dragons in various parts of the world.
As a corollary, “cave-men” can be found in Job 30:1-8. This passage describes cavemen not as people that preceded modern man but as people who were dispossessed for one reason or another from society. This actually fits recent discoveries which indicate that Neanderthals survived well into the age of man, cross bred with them at times, but were hunted out of existence, or died due to other circumstantial pressures. By the way, Genesis’ account of two lines in Genesis 6 is taken by some (not me) as representing those two genetic lines.
However, we need to be careful in pronouncing every skeleton found in a cave to be a cave man in the sense the world usually uses. To this very day there are people living in caves all over the world. Some do it because they are social outcasts, some do it for economic reasons, and some do it simply because they enjoy the coolness!
Were there ancient groups of people that preceded the historical record? Absolutely. But we must not fall into the interpretive trap of associating every cave dweller with a primitive society.
In 40:19 the behemoth was the “chief” of all created land animals, which lends itself to the theory that this may have been one of the great land dinosaurs. Even we “moderns” refer to the tyrannosaurus as “Rex” (Latin for king).
These, like all other animals, were created on the fifth and sixth days of the creation “week”, which leads to a whole other set of questions.
“Leviathan” was evidently the greatest of the marine reptiles, or dinosaurs, something like a plesiosaur, perhaps, although modern commentators tend to call it a crocodile. Isaiah says that leviathan was “the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1), and the psalmist said that leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (Psalm 104:25-26).
Whatever the leviathan was, it was not a crocodile. Some descendants survived to and beyond Job’s day, giving rise to all the traditions of dragons in various parts of the world.
As a corollary, “cave-men” can be found in Job 30:1-8. This passage describes cavemen not as people that preceded modern man but as people who were dispossessed for one reason or another from society. This actually fits recent discoveries which indicate that Neanderthals survived well into the age of man, cross bred with them at times, but were hunted out of existence, or died due to other circumstantial pressures. By the way, Genesis’ account of two lines in Genesis 6 is taken by some (not me) as representing those two genetic lines.
However, we need to be careful in pronouncing every skeleton found in a cave to be a cave man in the sense the world usually uses. To this very day there are people living in caves all over the world. Some do it because they are social outcasts, some do it for economic reasons, and some do it simply because they enjoy the coolness!
Were there ancient groups of people that preceded the historical record? Absolutely. But we must not fall into the interpretive trap of associating every cave dweller with a primitive society.
How Do Dinosaurs Fit In the Biblical Timeline?
A lady once wrote to my asking, "How do you respond to children who ask how the dinosaurs fit into the timeline of the Bible? I have told my son (age 11) they were wiped out with the flood, but he asked why 2 of them weren't on the Ark."
Descriptions of dinosaurs can be found in the oldest book of the Bible, Job 40:15-24 and 41:1-34. In the passage the word “behemoth” means simply, “huge beast,” and many old school commentators commonly take it to be either an elephant or a hippopotamus. The subsequent description, however, fits neither of these, nor any other living animal. On the other hand, it does seem to match the probable description of a great land dinosaur, such as the tyrannosaurus. For instance, no elephant or hippo has a tail like a cedar.
In 40:19 the behemoth was the “chief” of all created land animals, which lends itself to the theory that this may have been one of the great land dinosaurs. Even we “moderns” refer to the tyrannosaurus as “Rex” (Latin for king).
These, like all other animals, were created on the fifth and sixth days of the creation “week”, which leads to a whole other set of questions.
“Leviathan” was evidently the greatest of the marine reptiles, or dinosaurs, something like a plesiosaur, perhaps, although modern commentators tend to call it a crocodile. Isaiah says that leviathan was “the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1), and the psalmist said that leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (Psalm 104:25-26). Whatever the leviathan was, it was not a crocodile. Some descendants survived to and beyond Job’s day, perhaps giving rise to all the traditions of dragons in various parts of the world.
As to the timeline, I believe that a great deal of time passed between the creation of humankind and the flood. For example, a common question is “Where did Cain find a wife?” The Scriptures do not say that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve’s first children; they simply tell the next important event in mankind’s sordid history. I believe the implication we may take from that simple fact is that there is a lot of unrecorded history that is unaccounted for in the Scriptures. We further see that in genealogical records which often skip multiple generations, simply listing those individuals who were important to the story.
Genesis 6 tells us that mankind was very wicked. Perhaps one of their many sins (as with us today) was the hunting of multiple species to extinction. They came to a horrible end for their hubris and I think that we moderns should also heed God’s warning found in Revelation 11:18 – that God will someday come to destroy those who destroy His Earth.
Not all dinosaurs were huge. Perhaps some could have fit into the ark but became extinct in the changed environment that followed that cataclysm. Perhaps they didn’t reproduce fast enough to keep up with the new challenges.
I don’t know how mature your son is and how detailed an answer he will need. Perhaps it is sufficient to tell him that the vast majority of land-based dinosaurs were extinct well before the flood. Those that were water-based, like whales and other sea-creatures, would not have found a place on the ark by their very nature. Who knows? Perhaps we may yet discover a strange creature long thought extinct somewhere in the depths of the ocean? Wouldn’t THAT be interesting?
Descriptions of dinosaurs can be found in the oldest book of the Bible, Job 40:15-24 and 41:1-34. In the passage the word “behemoth” means simply, “huge beast,” and many old school commentators commonly take it to be either an elephant or a hippopotamus. The subsequent description, however, fits neither of these, nor any other living animal. On the other hand, it does seem to match the probable description of a great land dinosaur, such as the tyrannosaurus. For instance, no elephant or hippo has a tail like a cedar.
In 40:19 the behemoth was the “chief” of all created land animals, which lends itself to the theory that this may have been one of the great land dinosaurs. Even we “moderns” refer to the tyrannosaurus as “Rex” (Latin for king).
These, like all other animals, were created on the fifth and sixth days of the creation “week”, which leads to a whole other set of questions.
“Leviathan” was evidently the greatest of the marine reptiles, or dinosaurs, something like a plesiosaur, perhaps, although modern commentators tend to call it a crocodile. Isaiah says that leviathan was “the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1), and the psalmist said that leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (Psalm 104:25-26). Whatever the leviathan was, it was not a crocodile. Some descendants survived to and beyond Job’s day, perhaps giving rise to all the traditions of dragons in various parts of the world.
As to the timeline, I believe that a great deal of time passed between the creation of humankind and the flood. For example, a common question is “Where did Cain find a wife?” The Scriptures do not say that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve’s first children; they simply tell the next important event in mankind’s sordid history. I believe the implication we may take from that simple fact is that there is a lot of unrecorded history that is unaccounted for in the Scriptures. We further see that in genealogical records which often skip multiple generations, simply listing those individuals who were important to the story.
Genesis 6 tells us that mankind was very wicked. Perhaps one of their many sins (as with us today) was the hunting of multiple species to extinction. They came to a horrible end for their hubris and I think that we moderns should also heed God’s warning found in Revelation 11:18 – that God will someday come to destroy those who destroy His Earth.
Not all dinosaurs were huge. Perhaps some could have fit into the ark but became extinct in the changed environment that followed that cataclysm. Perhaps they didn’t reproduce fast enough to keep up with the new challenges.
I don’t know how mature your son is and how detailed an answer he will need. Perhaps it is sufficient to tell him that the vast majority of land-based dinosaurs were extinct well before the flood. Those that were water-based, like whales and other sea-creatures, would not have found a place on the ark by their very nature. Who knows? Perhaps we may yet discover a strange creature long thought extinct somewhere in the depths of the ocean? Wouldn’t THAT be interesting?
Why Are Bats Classified as Birds In the Bible?
Bats are only mentioned a few times in the Bible. Bats are listed among those types of winged creatures that the people of Israel were forbidden to eat.
Some controversy can arise with these two passages because they include bats in a list of birds which is not scientifically accurate. This matter is easily laid to rest when one realizes that the term translated as “bird” in both cases is the Hebrew word “’ofe” (Strong’s #5774; pronounced like “oaf”). ‘Ofe literally means “winged creature and can include fowl, birds, winged insects and bats.
For instance, in Genesis 1:20-22, 26, 28, 30, all verses that deal very generally with every type of creature that is able to fly, ‘ofe is used in every occasion.
As another example, consider the very same two passages. Mere verses later, the same word ‘ofe is translated as winged insects.
- Leviticus 11:14-18 HCSB "You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the various kinds of falcon, 15 every kind of raven, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the long-eared owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.
- Deuteronomy 14:11- 18 HCSB You may eat every clean bird, 12 but these are the ones you may not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 13 the kite, the various kinds of falcon, 14 every kind of raven, 15 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the gull, the various kinds of hawk, 16 the little owl, the long-eared owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, the various kinds of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.
Some controversy can arise with these two passages because they include bats in a list of birds which is not scientifically accurate. This matter is easily laid to rest when one realizes that the term translated as “bird” in both cases is the Hebrew word “’ofe” (Strong’s #5774; pronounced like “oaf”). ‘Ofe literally means “winged creature and can include fowl, birds, winged insects and bats.
For instance, in Genesis 1:20-22, 26, 28, 30, all verses that deal very generally with every type of creature that is able to fly, ‘ofe is used in every occasion.
As another example, consider the very same two passages. Mere verses later, the same word ‘ofe is translated as winged insects.
- Leviticus 11:20-23 HCSB "All winged insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 But you may eat these kinds of all the winged insects that walk on all fours: those that have jointed legs above their feet for hopping on the ground. 22 You may eat these: the various kinds of locust, the various kinds of katydid, the various kinds of cricket, and the various kinds of grasshopper. 23 All [other] winged insects that have four feet are to be detestable to you.
- Deuteronomy 14:19-20 HCSB All winged insects are unclean for you; they may not be eaten. 20 But you may eat every clean flying creature.
General Revelation
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and
divine nature -- have been clearly seen being understood what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
Christian's acknowledge two forms of revelation -- special and general. Both are testimonies to the majesty and sovereignty of God. Special revelation involves God's supernatural intervention in the affairs of man. General revelation involves God's
witness through creation itself. Our universe is an example of general revelation; it bears the marks of intelligent design and purpose: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19:1). General revelation includes the natural order -- it is a God-ordained testimony that he is creator and sustainer: "Yet He has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their season" (Acts 14:17).
General revelation also includes that which God has placed in our hearts; for example
moral law: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14-15).
God has spoken to us through creation. It is not for lack of evidence that people reject
God. General revelation is available to all. Acceptance of this light will lead one to the greater light; rejecting it leads one further into darkness. "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it" (John 1:3-5).
divine nature -- have been clearly seen being understood what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
Christian's acknowledge two forms of revelation -- special and general. Both are testimonies to the majesty and sovereignty of God. Special revelation involves God's supernatural intervention in the affairs of man. General revelation involves God's
witness through creation itself. Our universe is an example of general revelation; it bears the marks of intelligent design and purpose: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19:1). General revelation includes the natural order -- it is a God-ordained testimony that he is creator and sustainer: "Yet He has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their season" (Acts 14:17).
General revelation also includes that which God has placed in our hearts; for example
moral law: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14-15).
God has spoken to us through creation. It is not for lack of evidence that people reject
God. General revelation is available to all. Acceptance of this light will lead one to the greater light; rejecting it leads one further into darkness. "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it" (John 1:3-5).
Are Adonaic Christians Anti-Science?
Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition by Cristiano Banti (1857)
You often hear people assert that religion, and Christianity in particular, has been an obstacle in the way of science’s progress. Sometimes they will go so far as to view Christianity as a formidable enemy. In many works of fiction, the noble scientist has to work around the rabid, sweaty fundamentalist Christian evangelist who is trying to stop legitimate research out of paranoia or simple greed for power.
Like all the best lies, this one has a grain of truth at its heart. This view could actually be supported by a little bit of fact because the religion of Christianity has in fact often proscribed the legitimate pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
Actually this attitude is not limited to Christianity. Even before Yeshua ben Adonai deigned tread our Earth, those who sought to go against the social grain and hold unpopular thoughts faced persecution.
Anaxagoras was arraigned for holding “impious doctrine.” His blasphemy? He held that the sun was an incandescent stone that was larger than Peloponnesus. He only kept his life through his political connection with Pericles.
Those who studied the black arts of alchemy (modern chemistry’s precursor) were often condemned as being in league with the devil and even Aquinas’ teacher, Albert the Great, did not wholly escape this suspicion. And Roger Bacon! How vehemently Christians actively opposed his desire to dissect human cadavers – something we accept perfectly today.
Everyone knows about Galileo. Sure, like many physicists today he was impudent enough to stray beyond the confines of physics into the realm of doctrine. But his judges were also in error for forcing an old man to perjure himself when they knew perfectly well what he still held in his heart.
Lest we begin to feel that the problem lies only in the Catholic Church, understand that Protestantism also must bear the burden of its attacks upon science. Ever since the systematic study of geology has arisen, its students have had to defend against a bitter and protracted war waged against them. As Cowper satirized,
“Drill and bore the solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date to Moses,
Was mistaken in its age.”
A Cause of Intolerance – Erroneous Application
There are many causes for this intolerance. First, we tend to accept our religious beliefs as revealed by God and our religious beliefs as taught by our human teachers to be one and the same. For instance, Greeks like Plato and Aristotle believed that the stars were gods. They believed that the stars were intelligent and influenced the lives of humans. So when Anaxagoras said that stars were no more than incandescent stones, they felt that their entire theology was under attack. Rather than look carefully and see if they had not perhaps made some unfortunate applications from their doctrine, they chose instead to leave their theology intact and instead attack the facts as presented through science.
Unfortunately for the Church, Aristotle loomed large in the Patristic age. He came to be viewed by many of the early church fathers almost as God’s mouthpiece. Don’t get me wrong, Aristotle’s thoughts were useful and helped us across several important intellectual hurdles. I have nothing against the man. I appreciate his Traditional Square of Opposition as much as the next logician. It’s his followers who licked his intellectual boots in such a servile manner with whom I have a problem. As long as they maintained this unquestioning attitude to centuries old thoughts Christianity made little to no progress.
Having said this (and probably alienated half of the Christians who may have had the temerity to actually begin reading) let me say that science as we know it would not even exist were it not for Christians.
Because of this fawning attitude toward Aristotle on the part of Christians, the Arabs made some small steps forward in the Long March of Science. I say small not out of a disrespect for their advances but out of an attempt at an honest evaluation of their part of the big picture. After all the Nestorians (a nominally Christian sect) were influential in early Arabic science and it was Syrian and Christian physicians who taught Alfarabi and Avicenna. Considering the lack of world-wide communication and modern intellectual tools, Arabic advances were quite astonishing. However, when compared to such notable names as Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Newton their accomplishments (as necessary and brilliant as they were) begin to fade.
It is interesting to note that the decline of Aristotle’s preeminence, the rise of the Reformation and the rise of modern science all seem to be interrelated. It was during this fertile period that the greatest methods, instruments and observations arose.
A Second Cause of Intolerance - Suspicion
Another reason for the unfortunate tension between religion and science is that we theologians are often a suspicious lot. Like most humans, we are slow to give up a cherished idea that has worked very well for us for a great number of years.
However, this attitude is not limited to religious men. Every new scientific idea has had to fight for its place of preeminence against a bunch of tenured professors whose comfortable university positions are either threatened by the new view or who are stricken with terminal apathy.
Is this not the very essence of the scientific method? A type of intellectual Darwinianism? Someone comes up with some new insight that contradicts or adds to the traditional view and publishes. The idea undergoes vigorous peer review and if it manages to survive gains a few hardy followers. With time and experimental affirmation it becomes the new traditional view and everyone acts as though they ALWAYS held this once reviled view.
This is a very old and valuable method and it was not created by scientists. Theologians have used this very technique for millennia. We created it. This very method was used to establish the Canon of Scripture. To the degree that the Church has been faithful to its Scriptural foundation, it has been a strong supporter if not a source of good science.
The Bible teaches that God is the source of the universe. He is the Prime Cause, the First Mover. Thus, to understand the universe is to understand something of its Architect. David agreed with this thought. He wrote:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun. - Psalms 19:2-4 HCSB
Is this not the reason Paul castigated humanity saying,
From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. - Romans 1:20 HCSB
The tzaddikim should be on the bleeding edge of science if for no other reason than their passion for “all things God.” Just as we rejoice at a letter from our sweetheart, tear it open while still standing by the mail box, and let our emotions rise and fall with each line, we should be endlessly fascinated by the discoveries of science.
Must we mindlessly accept all the interpretations of science? Absolutely not! Any good scientist would agree with this. The fundamental tenet of good science and good theology is “question everything”. After all, a conclusion is just where you got tired of thinking.
Do not doubt the veracity of the Bible – but be sure to question your understanding of the Bible. When God’s two books, the Scriptures and Nature, seem to disagree – be sure that they don’t. We simply don’t know enough yet to consolidate the two. Rest assured, a little more research, a little more experimentation, a little more study of the Scriptures and we will soon discover that Science and Theology are simply two paths toward one truth – Elohim.
Like all the best lies, this one has a grain of truth at its heart. This view could actually be supported by a little bit of fact because the religion of Christianity has in fact often proscribed the legitimate pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
Actually this attitude is not limited to Christianity. Even before Yeshua ben Adonai deigned tread our Earth, those who sought to go against the social grain and hold unpopular thoughts faced persecution.
Anaxagoras was arraigned for holding “impious doctrine.” His blasphemy? He held that the sun was an incandescent stone that was larger than Peloponnesus. He only kept his life through his political connection with Pericles.
Those who studied the black arts of alchemy (modern chemistry’s precursor) were often condemned as being in league with the devil and even Aquinas’ teacher, Albert the Great, did not wholly escape this suspicion. And Roger Bacon! How vehemently Christians actively opposed his desire to dissect human cadavers – something we accept perfectly today.
Everyone knows about Galileo. Sure, like many physicists today he was impudent enough to stray beyond the confines of physics into the realm of doctrine. But his judges were also in error for forcing an old man to perjure himself when they knew perfectly well what he still held in his heart.
Lest we begin to feel that the problem lies only in the Catholic Church, understand that Protestantism also must bear the burden of its attacks upon science. Ever since the systematic study of geology has arisen, its students have had to defend against a bitter and protracted war waged against them. As Cowper satirized,
“Drill and bore the solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date to Moses,
Was mistaken in its age.”
A Cause of Intolerance – Erroneous Application
There are many causes for this intolerance. First, we tend to accept our religious beliefs as revealed by God and our religious beliefs as taught by our human teachers to be one and the same. For instance, Greeks like Plato and Aristotle believed that the stars were gods. They believed that the stars were intelligent and influenced the lives of humans. So when Anaxagoras said that stars were no more than incandescent stones, they felt that their entire theology was under attack. Rather than look carefully and see if they had not perhaps made some unfortunate applications from their doctrine, they chose instead to leave their theology intact and instead attack the facts as presented through science.
Unfortunately for the Church, Aristotle loomed large in the Patristic age. He came to be viewed by many of the early church fathers almost as God’s mouthpiece. Don’t get me wrong, Aristotle’s thoughts were useful and helped us across several important intellectual hurdles. I have nothing against the man. I appreciate his Traditional Square of Opposition as much as the next logician. It’s his followers who licked his intellectual boots in such a servile manner with whom I have a problem. As long as they maintained this unquestioning attitude to centuries old thoughts Christianity made little to no progress.
Having said this (and probably alienated half of the Christians who may have had the temerity to actually begin reading) let me say that science as we know it would not even exist were it not for Christians.
Because of this fawning attitude toward Aristotle on the part of Christians, the Arabs made some small steps forward in the Long March of Science. I say small not out of a disrespect for their advances but out of an attempt at an honest evaluation of their part of the big picture. After all the Nestorians (a nominally Christian sect) were influential in early Arabic science and it was Syrian and Christian physicians who taught Alfarabi and Avicenna. Considering the lack of world-wide communication and modern intellectual tools, Arabic advances were quite astonishing. However, when compared to such notable names as Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Newton their accomplishments (as necessary and brilliant as they were) begin to fade.
It is interesting to note that the decline of Aristotle’s preeminence, the rise of the Reformation and the rise of modern science all seem to be interrelated. It was during this fertile period that the greatest methods, instruments and observations arose.
A Second Cause of Intolerance - Suspicion
Another reason for the unfortunate tension between religion and science is that we theologians are often a suspicious lot. Like most humans, we are slow to give up a cherished idea that has worked very well for us for a great number of years.
However, this attitude is not limited to religious men. Every new scientific idea has had to fight for its place of preeminence against a bunch of tenured professors whose comfortable university positions are either threatened by the new view or who are stricken with terminal apathy.
Is this not the very essence of the scientific method? A type of intellectual Darwinianism? Someone comes up with some new insight that contradicts or adds to the traditional view and publishes. The idea undergoes vigorous peer review and if it manages to survive gains a few hardy followers. With time and experimental affirmation it becomes the new traditional view and everyone acts as though they ALWAYS held this once reviled view.
This is a very old and valuable method and it was not created by scientists. Theologians have used this very technique for millennia. We created it. This very method was used to establish the Canon of Scripture. To the degree that the Church has been faithful to its Scriptural foundation, it has been a strong supporter if not a source of good science.
The Bible teaches that God is the source of the universe. He is the Prime Cause, the First Mover. Thus, to understand the universe is to understand something of its Architect. David agreed with this thought. He wrote:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun. - Psalms 19:2-4 HCSB
Is this not the reason Paul castigated humanity saying,
From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. - Romans 1:20 HCSB
The tzaddikim should be on the bleeding edge of science if for no other reason than their passion for “all things God.” Just as we rejoice at a letter from our sweetheart, tear it open while still standing by the mail box, and let our emotions rise and fall with each line, we should be endlessly fascinated by the discoveries of science.
Must we mindlessly accept all the interpretations of science? Absolutely not! Any good scientist would agree with this. The fundamental tenet of good science and good theology is “question everything”. After all, a conclusion is just where you got tired of thinking.
Do not doubt the veracity of the Bible – but be sure to question your understanding of the Bible. When God’s two books, the Scriptures and Nature, seem to disagree – be sure that they don’t. We simply don’t know enough yet to consolidate the two. Rest assured, a little more research, a little more experimentation, a little more study of the Scriptures and we will soon discover that Science and Theology are simply two paths toward one truth – Elohim.
The Two Inerrant Books
I believe that God gave us two inerrant books in which to discover Him. The first is, of course, the Bible
The second book, equally inerrant, is nature.
God created the universe. Nature, being both mindless and yet governed by strict laws, is inextricably bound to the truth. The physical and energetic universe is incapable of making “errors” in the sense of going against God’s will because it is controlled directly by God and, having no will of its own, is unable to rebel. It follows certain physical laws and will never diverge, short of interference by God or man, from these principles.
The proper attitude
Because of this, I may observe the universe and know that it will never lie to me. I may observe the Scriptures and know they will never lie to me. Because both were created and directed by God they will never contradict each other. If I look at them and see conflict, it is not because the Scriptures have erred or Nature is lying; it is my own lack of understanding that is creating the difference. I simply am not yet wise enough to reconcile the difference I see.
- 2 Peter 1:20-21 HCSB First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation, (21) because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 HCSB All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The second book, equally inerrant, is nature.
- Psalms 19:1-4 HCSB For the choir director. A Davidic psalm. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. (2) Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. (3) There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. (4) Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun.
- Romans 1:18-20 HCSB For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, (19) since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. (20) From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
God created the universe. Nature, being both mindless and yet governed by strict laws, is inextricably bound to the truth. The physical and energetic universe is incapable of making “errors” in the sense of going against God’s will because it is controlled directly by God and, having no will of its own, is unable to rebel. It follows certain physical laws and will never diverge, short of interference by God or man, from these principles.
The proper attitude
Because of this, I may observe the universe and know that it will never lie to me. I may observe the Scriptures and know they will never lie to me. Because both were created and directed by God they will never contradict each other. If I look at them and see conflict, it is not because the Scriptures have erred or Nature is lying; it is my own lack of understanding that is creating the difference. I simply am not yet wise enough to reconcile the difference I see.
Other Useful Links
Twenty-nine scientific principles accurately depicted in the Bible and compared to historically current thought. HERE.
