The Mars Hill Club

It is a popular misconception, even among Christians, that Christianity and science contradict each other. It is thought that since science is superior to faith, that Christianity impedes science, and that no truly thinking person can believe both Christianity and science (Tyra 1-5). Others believe that faith is superfluous and unnecessary since science will eventually solve all problems (Palmer 161). These are all myths that come from a mistaken belief that science constitutes a superior method for investigating truth. Science itself makes up a worldview that is unable to be investigated by the methods of science. Since this is the case, it follows that while science is a powerful tool for investigating truth, it is not the only way to explore truth. Because science does not have the sole claim on truth, other disciplines that make truth claims must be allowed to have a say and given equal footing along with science. From this standpoint Christian faith is not at all contradictory to science but stands equal and consistent with science.

Before we evaluate the myths and assumptions of science, lets take a moment to investigate what science is and can do. In order to consistently make advancements, science needs a reliable methodology and reproducible results (162). Scientists plan out their experiments very carefully, making sure start off with a good hypothesis (162). A suitable hypothesis consists of at least five elements: it is relevant, testable, compatible with established hypotheses, has explanatory or predictive power, and is relatively simple (163-164). Relevance means that the hypothesis in question actually explains something; it must be proposed for a discernable purpose (163). Testability is generally considered to be the primary demarcation between science and non-science; there must be a component that is open to being measured using scientific instruments (163). While it is true that in the past there have been occasions when a new theory supplanted an older one, in general a scientific hypothesis must be consistent with other hypotheses that are well tested and accepted by the scientific community (163). A good hypothesis also must be useful for deducing, or predicting, new phenomena and explaining older phenomena (164). The simplicity of a theory means that all parts of the hypothesis are essential to the theory; all things being equal, the simpler of two hypotheses is preferred over the more complex (164).

Science has several basic assumptions that, together with methodology, help to define what science is able to do. The assumptions are that there is order in nature, uniformity in nature, and singularity of causes (166). Scientists assume that the universe is structured in a coherent intelligible way, such that it is possible to find patterns and regularities. Nature is assumed to be uniform in that any law observed to be in effect on the Earth is also in effect throughout the entire universe (166). Singularity of causes refers to the principle that for every effect or event in the universe there is only one cause for that effect (166-167). If any of these three assumptions prove to be untrue, then science utterly collapses. These assumptions along with scientific methodology are what propelled science to the heights that it currently enjoys. Since the methodology and assumptions of science have to do with deducing and quantifying the make-up of the physical universe, science does a very good job of providing answers to the questions ‘what is it?’ and ‘what does it do?’

In spite of the great successes of science and the strong deductive ability of science for exploring the universe, science has some rather severe limits. Because the scientific method is only able to deal with the tangible physical universe, it is unable to investigate any aspect of the cosmos that is purely spiritual or non-physical in its essential nature (168). Another limitation is that historically science has proceeded in fits and jumps as opposed to a steady rate (168). This uneven advancement of science is due to the fact that there is no steering mechanism, no formulaic way for science to consistently advance at a set pace (168-169). Often, scientists proceed with their work without ever considering models outside of their particular field (169-170). This results in a general inability of scientists to take relevant information from a different field of science and apply it to a particular problem (170). One of the more important limitations of science is the fact that science is unable to make judgments about what ought to be done (170-171). In other words, science can only tell us what ‘is’ not what ‘ought to be’ and is silent when it comes to moral, aesthetic, or social issues.

Because modern society has elevated science to the highest level of knowledge, several myths have built up. One myth is that the Bible contains and promotes many scientific errors (Tyra 1). The creation story in Genesis one is often pointed out as an example, since this chapter is often interpreted as describing the universe as being made in six literal 24-hour days (1). The biggest problem with this view is the fact that the Bible was not meant to be a science textbook but that God meant Genesis one to hold profound theological content as opposed to being a modern scientific treatise describing the origin of the world (1). In fact, if we focus too much on the science of Genesis one, the theological content can be missed, content that answers the question ‘Why did God create the world?’ (1). Since the methodology of science is blind to spiritual truth it is legitimate to conclude that both science and scripture have valid insight into the origin of the universe (1).

Probably the largest myth is that science is superior to Christianity. This egregious myth is due to the faulty notion that Christianity is arrived at through a blind leap of faith while science rests on the rock surety of logic and reason (2). It is very important to note that faith does not require a blind leap but an informed leap that Tyra describes as “self-commitment based on evidence” (2). This aspect of faith can be clearly seen in such Bible passages as Psalms 34:8 and 1 Peter 2:2-3 (2). It is particularly important to note that science stands on a similar platform of faith as Christianity does; like spiritual truth, the assumptions of science are not open to inquiry through the scientific method (2). Science takes as much faith to believe as Christianity does (3).

The third myth about science and Christianity is that science is progressive and practical while Christianity is regressive and impractical (3). There are two points to bring out in rebuttal to this myth: there have been many instances in which Christianity has been progressive and practical and there have been many instances of science being destructive (3). Christianity has provided the impetus for many beneficial social movements such as the anti-slavery, anti-child labor, and women’s suffrage movements (3). It is often overlooked that science a dark side consisting of technology appropriated toward violent ends (3). Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are all the result of scientific advancements that were meant for good but were turned toward evil purposes (3). Since science is incapable of deciding what ought to be, it is incapable of self-monitoring and deciding what projects ought and ought not be pursued by scientists.

The final myth is that no thinking person can hold to both science and Christianity at the same time (4). This myth is almost ludicrously easy to address yet is quite pervasive in our culture nonetheless. Historically, the earliest scientists were driven by a sense that God had created the universe in a rational way such that it is possible to discover how the universe was made. Christianity itself provided one of the basic assumptions of science! In any case, the earliest scientists were devout Christians, many modern scientists are Christians, and many Christians affirm the work of science (4). If it is impossible for a thinking person to adhere to Christianity, then why are there so many thinking persons who are adherents? The answer is that Christians are able to reconcile their faith and science in such a way that it coheres with their worldview and helps move them toward having a fully integrated self.

In conclusion, it can be said that science and the Bible are consistent and not at all contradictory. Although science can be a powerful tool for human advancement, it falls short of answering the existential questions regarding the meaning and purpose for the lives of human beings. When the limitations of science are considered and the myths of our society addressed, it can be seen that science and the Bible are complementary tools for arriving at truth. Science explores the physical universe while the Bible answers the big questions regarding meaning, value, and purpose. Even though both science and the Bible give us valuable insight into our world, there is a question of which type of answer is actually more immediately useful for an individual. The type of answer provided by science or the type of answer provided by the Bible? When it is all said and done, would you rather know about a new star system that has been discovered through science or would you like to know your purpose in life through reading the Bible?

Works Cited

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Christianity 101. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1993.

Palmer, Michael, ed. Elements of a Christian Worldview. Springfield, MO: Logion, 1998.

Tyra, Gary. “Are Christian Faith and Natural Science Mutually Exclusive?” Class handout. Vanguard University, Costa Mesa, 2004.