Lecture Series to Faculty at BiolaUniversity
24 February 1994
Robert C. Newman
CONFLICTBETWEEN
SCIENCEAND CHRISTIANITY
Classic Conflict Model: (Brooke, 33-42)
Facts vs. faith; science never wrong, theology never right,in warfare between them
Approachof Draper, White, Huxley
Complementarity Model:
Science and religion each answer a different set of humanneeds
Main problem is each getting on other's turf; should be keptseparate
Thisis somewhat like Howard Van Till's position
Interaction Model:
Certain religious beliefs are conducive to the practice ofscience
Interaction between science and religion can work for theadvantage of both
A.N. Whitehead and R. K. Merton favor this approach
Analysis:
Conflict approach is currently being panned by a number ofhistorians of science;
SeeColin Russell, J. H. Brooke; but want to avoid overreaction in other direction
What constitutes "science" andwhat "theology"?
(whyshould we expect theologians to be good scientists if scientists aren't goodtheologians?)
--method: methodological naturalism/atheism?
--goal: to find out how things really are?
--content: what is known currently in various fields?
--sociological: what scientists do?
Sociologyof knowledge - desire for the truth not the only, often not even the maindriving force behind group human endeavors; see this is true for variousgroupings within Christianity: denominations, congregations, schools, etc.; butalso true in science, see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of ScientificRevolutions
What is in Conflict?
Dowe compare "science" with "Christendom" or"theology" or "evangelicalism" or what?
Compare"Bible" with "nature" (data)
Compare"theology" with "theoretical science" (method)
Compare"exegesis" with "experimental science" (interpretation)
Method or Goal?
Dowe define "science" as a method?
explanationwithout recourse to miracle?
Dowe define "science" as a goal?
tryingto understand what actually exists?
Methodologically"science" and "exegesis" are very similar; in fact, nodistinctive method divides various scholarly disciplines in such a way as tomake science unique
Historically,as Brooke shows, the situation is a complex mixture of these various models ofconflict, complementarity, interaction.
Is Theology Never Right?
Thisis somewhat unfair, as general revelation provides enormous detail, where Bibledoes not; and general revelation keeps exposing new pages every generation,while we have all the Bible and have for centuries
Still,if Bible is what it claims to be, and God of Bible really put togetheruniverse, then we should see some evidence it is right about nature, too
TheCase of Matthew Maury (1806-1873): U.S. Navy oceanographer
Firstto recognize ocean as circulating system of currents involving interaction ofair and ocean
Gotidea from biblical figure of "paths in the sea" (Ps 8:8)
Thinkingthrough what a path does on land (makes travel easier, faster), decided toinvestigate travel time by sea
Massiveexamination of ship's logbooks led to construction of charts for winds andcurrents
Maurycame to be called "the pathfinder of the seas"
JeanSloat Morton, Science in the Bible(Moody, 1978), 119-121.
CharlesL. Lewis, Matthew Fontaine Maury: Pathfinder of the Seas (U.S. Naval Institute, 1927).
Christianityas a Basis for Modern Science
SeeR. Hooykas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Eerdmans, 1972), 161-162:
Withoutclaiming any intellectural superiority for the scientists of the Renaissanceand Baroque periods over their ancient and medieval European predecessors orover Oriental philosophers, one has to recognize as a simple fact that'classical modern science' arose only in the western part of Europe in thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries .... from this point on, anyone with the necessary talent may help build upscience on solidly established foundations. Scientists from nations whose own culture did not give birthto anything like modern science have already made valuable contributions to it. Western people who have lost allcontact with the religion of their forefathers continue in their scientificactivities the tradition inherited from them.
...
Theconfrontation of Graeco-Roman culture with biblical religion engendered, aftercenturies of tension, a new science. This science preserved the indispensable parts of the ancient heritage(mathematics, logic, methods of observation and experimentation), but it wasdirected by different social and methodological conceptions, largely stemmingfrom a biblical worldview. Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science mayhave been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical.
Creationand Modern Cosmology
SeeRobert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (Norton, 1978), closing paragraph (p 116):
Forthe scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story endslike a bad dream. He has scaledthe mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as hepulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians whohave been there for centuries.
Bibliography: Conflict Between Scienceand Christianity:
JohnW. Draper. History of theConflict Between Religion and Science. Appleton, 1874.
AndrewDickson White. A History of theWarfare Between Science and Theology in Christendom. Reprint, Dover, 196?
R.Hooykas. Religion and the Riseof Modern Science. Eerdmans, 1972.
Ronald L. Numbers. The Creationists. Knopf, 1992.
J. R. Moore. Post-Darwinian Controversies. Cambridge, 1981.
DavidN. Livingstone. Darwin'sForgotten Defenders: The EncounterBetween Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought. Eerdmans, 1987.
AdrianDesmond and James Moore. Darwin:Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. Warner, 1992.
TomMcIver. Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography. McFarland, 1988; reprint Johns Hopkins, 1992.
JohnHedley Brooke. Science andReligion: Some HistoricalPerspectives. Cambridge, 1991.
RobertC. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. InterVarsity, 1977; reprint IBRI, 1991.
JohnL. Wiester. The GenesisConnection. Nelson, 1983; reprint IBRI, 1992.
Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. Norton, 1986.
JohnM. Templeton and Robert L. Herrmann. The God Who Would Be Known: Revelations of the Divine in Contemporary Science. Harper and Row, 1989.
MichaelBauman, ed. Man andCreation: Perspectives on Scienceand Theology. Hillsdale, 1993.
THEHERMENEUTICS OF
BIBLICALDESCRIPTIONS
OFNATURE
Ramm's Characteristics of BiblicalLanguage:
Popularrather than technical
Actuallyhave little knowledge of what technical terms existed in classical Hebrew; NTuses some Greek technical terms (e.g., Hobart, Med Lang St Luke)
PresumablyBible designed for a general audience rather than specialists, and (from God'sperspective) for multiple centuries and cultures
Phenomenologicalrather than mechanical
e.g.,"sun rises," "seed dies," etc.
"Mechanical"not good term, perhaps theoretical; in any case, this is strongly linked tonext item
Doesnot theorize
Describeswhat happens, but tends to focus on ultimate cause (God did it) rather thanmediate causes
Butnot always, e.g., presence of wind in opening Red Sea
Seealso Job 1 and 2 re/ Satan's activity in producing material effects in nature
BetterSnow's remark in Portraits of Creation, 14:
"[Scripturehas] a notable lack of systematic discussion concerning the orderedrelationship linking phenomenon to phenomenon within the ordered world"
Culturalterminology
Usesstandard terms in host language for such things as time, psychology, medicine,measurements, etc.
Helpfulto remember that Hebrews didn't invent Hebrew, nor Xns invent Greek (tho Greekof NT heavily influenced by LXX)
These features put greater burden onpeople who are more educated, more sophisticated, which is in keeping withbiblical principle that "to whom much is given, much is required."
Science and Theology in Scripture:
Rammsees (saw) no scientific error in Scripture (vs. Rust), but no scientificteaching either (also vs. Rust); H. Van Till holds something close to thisposition
Ihave some reservations about applying our modern science/ theology distinctionto Scripture; the remarks in "Some Characteristics of Biblical Language"above apply to some extent to theological statements of Bible also.
Particularlyin the area of origins, it seems problematical to assert the Bible gives noscientific information. Why notscientific information in popular language? See Dallas Cain's work in progress "Translating GenesisOne in the Light of Modern Scientific Findings"; [see his book on IBRIwebsite, www.ibri.org]
Isee no scientific error, but am willing to look for evidence of scientific teachingto see if actually present; I find some in astronomy and medicine (see, e.g.,Newman and Eckelmann, Genesis 1 and the Origin of the Earth, and McMillen and Stern, None ofThese Diseases).
Distinguishing Literal and FigurativeUsage:
Notalways easy, but both certainly exist in Scripture.
Wantto reject a "methodolical literalism" which tries to avoid figures atnearly any cost
Wantto avoid allegorization, other mystical approaches (numerology) which findfigure, symbol when author(s) did not intend such.
Howdo we recognize a figure?
Howin literature in general? (Hirsch, 198)
validationvia probability
genericvalidation (external/internal)
small-scalevalidation (also ext/int; takes priority over generic)
Howin Scripture in general? (Berkhof, 84-85)
genre- is figure allowed in this type?
sense- literal unless contradiction/absurdity
(Berkhofis somewhat too strong here, but give benefit of doubt to author, esp whereinspiration/revelation understood)
context- internal helps, most important
Howin "science" passages?
validationvia probability
don'tbe dogmatic
genre
don'tinvent special genres
testvarious alternatives:
narrative,teaching, poetry
sense- does it contradict well-established observation?
author- e.g., Satan, Job, friends, God?
Howdo we recognize a standpoint?
e.g.,for figure "death as sleep" - from whose perspective?
Iscreation account to be read as though we are observing from outer space or fromearth's surface?; is it to be read as though speaking to scientists,theologians, man in street?
Howdo we recognize a genre?
e.g.,narrative, parable, teaching, exhortation, proverb
e.g.,the Bible says, "There is no God"
true,but this is a quotation of speaker identified as a fool
IsMatthew "midrash" a la Gundry?
IsJonah "parable"?
IsSong of Solomon "allegory"?
IsGenesis 2 "parable"?
BIBLICALVIEW
OFNATURE
Contrastthis with other worldviews, including scientisms of various sorts
Created (Gen 1:1, etc.)
probablymost basic feature of nature acc to Scripture
finite- had beginning, prob limited in size
artifact– made by God, didnŐt happen by itself
vs.eternal - nature has not always existed
vs.divine - not to be worshipped
vs.accidental - made by God's wisdom
Good (Gen 1:31 and several times earlier)
vs.neutral
vs.accidental
vs.bad, according to Gnostics
Revelatory (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:18-20)
showsGod's character as an artifact shows craftsman's
revealsGod's glory (importance, that which is unique?)
revealsGod's divine nature, eternal power
teleologya natural consequence
vs.accidental
vs.meaningless
Orderly/Uniform (Gen 8:22; material on covenant. etc.)
inexplicableeven in modern science
vs.random, chaotic
vs.work of committee
Controlled (Rom 8:28; Isa 44:24-28)
everythingunder God's control, working out his purposes
vs.accidental
Cursed (Gen 3:17; Rom 8:20 and Eccl)
someuncertainty re/ scope of this
vs.made imperfect, or still evolving
Stewardship (Gen 1:28; Ps 8)
ecologistswant something of this sort, but get tangled in priorities
Finite (Gen 1; Ps 147:4; Rev 21, 22)
hasa beginning, prob a finite size
somesort of end, but (renewed) will last forever
Open (Gen 18; Ex 3; Josh 5; Job 1-2, 38-42)
vs.closed
nottypically given much attention by Xns in science or even theology; perhaps areaction to medieval & charismatic extremes
universemore like a guitar than a watch
VanTill's "functional integrity"?
problemshere; if "functional integrity of science," why not of history? but this is Bultmann!
Visible Part of Larger Realm (2 Kings 6; Job 1-2; Matt 17)
relatedto "open" above
universenot explicable from within
notall causation internal
universeas stage, history as novel
Bibliography: Hermeneutics andBiblical View of Nature:
L. Berkhof. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Baker, 1950.
BernardRamm. The Christian View ofScience and Scripture. Eerdmans, 1954.
E. D. Hirsch, Jr. Validity in Interpretation. Yale, 1967.
Anthony C. Thiselton. The Two Horizons. Eerdmans, 1980.
JohnPolkinghorne. One World: the Interaction of Science and Theology. Princeton, 1986.
VernS. Poythress. Science andHermeneutics. Academie/ Zondervan, 1988.
HowardVan Till, et al. Portraits ofCreation: Biblical and ScientificPerspectives on the World's Formation. Eerdmans, 1990.
MichaelBauman, ed. Man andCreation: Perspectives on Scienceand Theology. Hillsdale College, 1993.
RussellMaatman. The Impact ofEvolutionary Theory: A ChristianView. Dordt College, 1993.
THEANTHROPIC PHENOMENA:
DESIGNOR CHANCE?
Since Hugh Ross will be doing some ofthis, want to look at just a few examples, emphasize attempts to avoid Designerhere; look at John Jefferson Davis and Alan Rhoda
Some Examples:
Water (see Barrow and Tipler, 524-541):
"oneof the strangest substances known to science" (524)
"mostof its ... physical properties have values enormously higher or lower thanthose of any other known material" (524)
propertiesnoted in Bridgwater Treatises(1830s) and in Lawrence J. Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment (Glouster, MA: Smith, 1913)
veryhigh melting point, boiling point, heat of fusion (524-26)
heatof vaporization higher than any other known substance (527); best possiblecoolant by evaporation
veryhigh surface tension (537)
highdielectric constant (537-38); great solvent for polar molecules; water itself tendsto ionize
almostunique in having solid state lighter than liquid (524, 533), so expands onfreezing; preventsfreeze-up of lakes, rivers, oceans; aids soil formation
higherspecific heat than almost all organic compounds (ammonia higher). so functions very well as heatsource/sink, stabilizing temperature of environment (534)
thesefeatures perhaps "boil down" to three?
(1)hydrogen bonds (nature of H and O)
(2)polar molecule
(3)angle between bonds
OtherLife Elements
Barrowand Tipler also discuss "anthropic significance" of hydrogen, oxygen,carbon (see esp 545-58), nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur
Electromagnetismand Gravity (see Adair, GreatDesign, 321)
Boththese basic forces are long-range, each decreasing as the square of thedistance
E-Mis enormously stronger than gravity, by some 37 powers of ten, yet gravitydominates on the astronomical size-scale, allowing hot suns and cool planets,and life as we know it
Whydoes gravity dominate when so much weaker?
Gravityhas only an attractive force, "mediated" by mass, which is onlypositive; like masses attract
E-mhas both attractive and repulsive force, "mediated" by charges, whichare either positive or negative; like charges repel, unlike attract
Thuse-m force tends to cancel out, so long as there are equal numbers of positiveand negative charges
Butfor e-m not to dominate, its charges must cancel out to much better than onepart in 10 to the 37, perhaps 1 in 10 to the 40 or so
Notobvious why this should be so, since electrons are main carriers of negativecharge, protons of positive, and these "froze out" at very differenttimes in the expansion of the universe
Attemptsto Avoid a Designer: Davis, Rhoda
AnthropicPrinciple: the universe is the way it is becauseof mankind
StrongAnthropic Principle: man caused the universe to be the wayit is so that he/she could arise! (Barrow, Wheeler)
Eithermankind is a manifestation of God (monism) or causes can operate backward intime
Littlereason to believe either of these without strong evidence
WeakAnthropic Principle: if the universe weren't the way it is,there would be no observers; conversely, since there are observers, theuniverse must be sufficiently fine-tuned to permit them to exist
Selectioneffect: apparent design is the result ofselection (as in "blind watchmaker" version of evolution), though notthe Darwinian natural selection.
Butvariables are so fine-tuned, it is an enormous surprise that there are any observers! Compare Leslie's illustration, "if the 1000 marksmen onthe firing squad hadn't missed me, I wouldn't be here to discuss the fact, sowhy be curious?"
Postulatea large ensemble:
1.successive oscillations of universe (Wheeler)
2.quantum many-worlds (Everett)
3.inflationary many-worlds (Leslie)
but#1 won't work (Hawking)
noevidence for #2
#3possible, but evidence for other universes not comparable to evidence for God
IfGod exists, anthropic principle coincidences "no surprise"; if Hedoesn't, even the need for "fine tuning" rather amazing, not to mentionthat we actually have it.
Thusthe "God model" naturally explains fine-tuning, "no-Godmodel" must make huge assumptions to account for it.
Bibliography: Anthropic Principle:
LawrenceJ. Henderson. The Fitness ofthe Environment.Glouster, MA: Smith, 1913.
Alan Hayward. God Is. Thomas Nelson, 1980.
P. C. W. Davies. The Accidental Universe. Cambridge, 1982.
JohnD. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. TheAnthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford, 1986.
RobertK. Adair. The Great Design:Particles, Fields and Creation. Oxford, 1987.
JohnJefferson Davis. "The DesignArgument, Cosmic 'Fine Tuning,' and the Anthropic Principle." Gordon-Conwell, c1988.
JohnM. Templeton and Robert L. Herrmann. The God Who Would Be Known: Revelations of the Divine in Contemporary Science. Harper and Row, 1989.
Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. NavPress, 1993.
AlanR. Rhoda. "Chance vs.Design: Is God ReallySuperfluous?" ETS National,Washington, DC, 1993.
RECENTDEVELOPMENTS IN PHYSICS:
IMPLICATIONSFOR THEOLOGY
The Quantum World
Quicktour of quantum phenomena:
photelectriceffect - light absorbed as units
discreteenergy levels in atoms, nuclei
particlenature of light \wave-particle
wavenature of electron, etc. / duality
Quantumtheory
quantumobjects described by probabilty/potentiality wave function, which"collapses" on interaction
Partlyan epistemological effect
investigatingsize-scales where observational tools disrupt structure - light is notinfinitely divisible, but comes in "atoms" called "quanta"
Butnot only epistemological
above,re/ quanta
two-slitexperiment - electron knows about other slit?
EPRparadox - instantaneous effects at a distance?
thereis really something non-local about nature!
Variousmetaphysical models for quantum phenomena
(massaginglists given in Davies/Brown and Herbert)
CopenhagenInterpretation (Bohr, Heisenberg)
prevailingview in physics today
nodeep reality in absence of measurement
(unobservedworld is only potentialities)
measurementcollapses wave function
(observedworld is actualities)
hugeproblem of how micro world transitions to macro
MindOver Matter Interpretation (Wigner, von Neumann)
consciousobserver collapses wave function
consciousnessnecessary to universe
problemof transition to consciousness
(humansare conscious; are animals, bugs, plants?)
Schrdinger'scat
ManyWorlds Interpretation (Everett, Davies)
nocollapse of wave function
instead,multiplication of universes
problemof conservation laws
(ifnothing conserved betweenuniverses, why anything conserved within them?)
Neorealism(Einstein, Planck, Schrdinger, Bohm)
worldmade of objects possessing attributes whether observed or not
UndividedWholeness Interpretation (Bohm, Capra?)
worlda seamless whole
realvalues of variables
but"locality" abandoned
"togetherness"undiminished by distance
Summary: see that "particle-contact"and "field-wave" views of reality have in fact been research programsrather than "the way things are"; and they have now encounteredcontradicting evidence
Relativity
Likequantum, seems to mock at common sense
Specialrelativity
phenomena:
absolutespeed limit
lengthcontraction
massincrease
timedilation
inabilityto specify absolute frame of reference
notstrictly new; this might have been so in Newtonian physics
relativityof space and time intervals to observers:
followsfrom absolute value of speed of light (in vacuum) for all observers
unpacksactual contradiction between equations of Newton for motion and of Maxwell fore-m
Generalrelativity
attemptto generalize relativity by including acceleration
foundlink between mass and space curvature
blackholes, twin paradox
reinstatespossible preferred obervation frame
Open vs Closed Universe
Twouses of phrase "closed universe":
--nothing outside that can penetrate
--universe will eventually collapse
Formermore common in theological discussions, latter in cosmological
Lookedat former under "Biblical View of Nature"
sohere consider latter
Someform of "big-bang" cosmology has driven out competitors
Varietiesof "big-bang" cosmology (one classification):
1.oscillating (popular until recently)
2.one-bounce (Gamow)
3.no-bounce (Lemaitre)
Problemswith stopping expansion (#1)
doesn'tlook like enough matter to overcome expansion speed
additionalmatter may turn up, but early production of helium and deuterium says no
Problemswith bouncing cosmologies (##1 & 2)
noknown force to stop contraction
gravityovercomes all at high enough densities
moveinto black hole rather than bouncing
evenrepulsive force won't work (Jastrow)
E= mc2 leads to additional effective mass
entropyof universe too low for having been through bounce (Hawking)
problemsappear insuperable
Chaos Theory
Chaosobserved in fluid flow (laminar to turbulent) for many years; so differentialequations of fluid flow are a mess!
Butterflyeffect - work with equations of meteorology (which is fluid flow) show thatlong term prediction impossible due to non-linear nature of equations
Recentinterest sparked by finding chaotic phenomena in numerous simple systems, inclplanetary motion
Chaoticsystem - solutions with arbitrarily close initial conditions eventually divergedrastically, so no matter how accurate you measure initial conditions, you knownothing about state of system once a significant period of time has passed
Clearestmessage is limitation on human ability to predict future
Someare hoping that chaos theory will produce arbitrarily large levels of orderwithout a designer; this appears to be whistling in the dark.
Bibliography: Recent Developments inPhysics:
GeorgeGamow. Mr. Tompkins inPaperback. Cambridge, 1940, 1945; reprint, 1993.
NickHerbert. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. Garden City: Doubleday/Anchor, 1985.
P.C.W.Davies and J.R. Brown. TheGhost in the Atom: A Discussion ofthe Mysteries of Quantum Physics. Cambridge, 1986.
J.C. Polkinghorne. The Quantum World. Princeton, 1984.
RobertJastrow. God and theAstronomers. Norton, 1978.
RobertC. Newman. "A CriticalExamination of Modern Cosmological Theories." IBRI Research Report 15 (1982).
StephenHawking. A Brief History ofTime. Bantam, 1988.
Hugh Ross. The Fingerprint of God. 2nd ed. Promise, 1991
Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. NavPress, 1993.
James Gleick. Chaos: Making a New Science. Viking, 1987.