Science and the Bible by Clem Boyd

Science and the Bible. Like oil and water, right? If you believe in science, you cant believe in the Bible. And if you believe in the Bible you surely cant believe in science. At least, thats the idea out there. You know, the Bibles a great tool for people who want to learn spiritual truth and get in touch with their spiritual side. But if you want hard facts about how things really are, stick with science. Does that sound familiar? So while Bible believers may be nice people, theyre essentially pie-in-the-sky thinkers, while adherents of science have their feet firmly planted on the ground. How did all this get started? Its like theres this automatic hostility between the two positions. A hostility, that, from my perspective, is unwarranted and unnecessary. Theres no larger area in which you see this suspicion and hostility than in the debate about the origins of the world, or what Bible believers call the Genesis story. On the scientific side is the belief that life on earth began as the result of chemical and electrical interactions in the primordial goo. This view pictures the ancient earth as a giant chemistry set in which was introduced a well-placed

lightning bolt, and voila, single-cell organisms, ala carte. On the Bible side, is the belief, based on the Genesis account, that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe and the world, that a being greater than ourselves designed the whole deal. This being we call God. Now there are some who are willing to find a compromise position, that God designed it all, but He did so in stages and over millions of years. But for the most part, the position thats understood as the Christian or Bible position, is one that states the earth is only about 6,000 years old and God created in a series of six, literal, 24-hour days. This position was popularized in Christian circles in the early 20th century as a response to Darwins Origin of the Species. Scientists and adherents of the scientific view have had strong reactions to this view of creation. Heres a sampling of quotes: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)..." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker The fundamentalist argument against the scientific assertion of the great age of our planetto the effect that God created the earth only about 6000 years ago, including fossils embedded in rocksis

unworthy of serious discussion.... It is now recognized by every intelligent and informed person that the two [Genesis and science] cannot be reconciled. Steve Allen, Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality. Yes, this is the same Steve Allen who hosted the Tonight Show before Jay Leno and Johnny Carson. "The spurious stories in Genesis are simply absurd. Yet, they do represent a conceptual framework from the undisciplined imagination of a prescientific age." - James Birx, Interpreting Evolution . Read this as saying, This view of creation worked for primitive, ignorant minds but weve moved beyond it now. Now I suppose that, in view of all this, we could take the position I stated earlier, that the Bible contains spiritual truth, but cant be counted on for providing accurate information in non-spiritual areas. But, frankly, if I cant trust the Bible in areas that can be verified, either by science or archaeology, than how can I trust what it says about God. But we dont need to take the position that its either the Bible or science. I think theres plenty of evidence that allows me to believe in God and the scientific view of things. The Bible itself claims to be accurate information from God, information that can be verified to see if its genuine (John 7:17, Is. 42:8-9). Therefore, we should

not expect contradictions between scientific fact and statements from the Bible, like we have in Genesis. Romans 1:20 is a good example (read from slide), For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Or Psalm 19:1-3, The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. These passages tell us that as we examine the earth and the universe, even at our own bodies, the complexity of the eye even, we should discover unmistakable evidence that it is the product of a single, great intelligence, who possesses power and personality. You get some sense of that from the experience of the lead character in the movie Contact. (cue clip) But lets discuss Darwins theory for awhile and see how all this got started. Back in 1859, English naturalist Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, a book that revolutionized the way people viewed the beginning of the world. In that book, Darwin discusses two different types of evolution, which well discuss here briefly.

Evolutionary theory can be divided into two categories -- micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is scientifically verified, and does not contradict the Bible. Microevolution makes two claims:
1.

such a way that we can tell thats how He did it. Pretty cool. Theres plenty of evidence in the Bible itself to suggest that Genesis recounts the creation of the universe and the world through a series of ages of time, thousands and millions of years, not literal 24-hour days. So you can believe in the Bible and the claims of geology without feeling like youve compromised anything. And this view that God created the heavens and the earth over a long expanse of time is not a recent development. Biblical commentators as far back as the time of Christ, 2000 years ago, proposed this idea. So there is no conflict between the biblical notion of creation and microevolution. But Darwins theory of macro-evolution is a different ball game. Macro-evolution does contradict the Genesis account. Darwins theory of macro-evolution says this:
1.

2.

Natural selection acts on variation within a population to preserve the most fit. By this process, an animal population can change over time so that its better adapted to its environment.

This theory has been tested and proven true. It goes like this: A population of lizards changes based on the striping, those with black stripes get picked off by predators while those with brown do not, because of their ability to blend in with the trees and bushes. Over time the population will adapt, so that there are only lizards with brown stripes. Remember, there is no conflict between this idea of micro-evolutionary change and the Bible. The biblical claim is that God created life, each genus or large group of animals, as it says in Genesis 1:25, God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. So God created the prototype for all the major animal groups, throughout a series of eons or long periods of time. And he did this in

2.

Life arose in some simple form by random, natural processes. All living things descended from that first life and were produced by random, natural processes.

This gets back to our idea that a lightning bolt charged the waters on ancient earth in such a way that life began. And over the last 50 years researchers have tried to

duplicate what that environment was like and have tried to create organisms that would just spontaneously recreate themselves. No luck so far. One of the key differences between micro- and macro- evolution is that macro-evolution makes an explicit claim about the source of new variation that it just happened by chance, that given the right circumstances, life will find a way, to quote Jeff Goldblum in the movie Jurassic Park. Keep in mind, this view of creation is a theory, an unproven idea, yet its often quoted as fact. Which position does the evidence support? The macro-evolutionary claim that life arose by chance or the biblical claim? The key to macro-evolution is this -- that living things are simple to start, so simple in fact that they can change very gradually over time, from a simple initial form into all forms in existence today. So this is what scientists have been trying to prove over the last 50 years or so, that the right combination of chemicals or an electrical discharge or something, maybe even an asteroid impact, could have stimulated the right combination of elements to create a single-cell organism capable of producing itself into an even-more complex creature. The whole Darwinian view hinges on this idea. As Darwin himself admitted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have

been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. So macro-evolution claims that at some underlying level living things are simple enough that the first living thing could come together on its own, and that genetic mutations, happening little by little over time and quite by accident, produced all the complex creatures we see today. To explain the eye, evolutionists say it must have started from a primitive, lightsensitive form and then, through time, slowly morphed through lots of middle stages to become eyes like ours. However, experiments to produce eyes have failed miserably. Instead scientists are discovering that the building blocks of life are very complex within themselves. "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these

openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity..." Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis To quote Harold P. Klein, former chair of the National Academy of Sciences committee on origin-of-life research, The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened. Scientists have observed that the smallest cells seem to act like finely-tuned complex machines, operating with unerring precision to perform tasks like clotting the blood or transforming light into recognizable images in the brain. Our ability to look more deeply and carefully at the functioning of the our bodies is setting Darwins theory on its ear. As one author has stated, We can conclude that [these] biochemical systems . . . were designed by an intelligent agent. We can be as confident of our conclusion for these cases as we are of the conclusion that a mousetrap was designed, or that Mt. Rushmore or an Elvis poster were designed. There is no question of degree for those systems, such as for the man in the moon or the shape of Italy." Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box Some may say, Well what about the missing link, what about mans origins and his connection to ancient primates. One

of the facts thats coming out of our study of the fossil record is that different types of life have arrived on earth in quite distinct periods of time. The most notable is the Cambrian explosion, which occurred 600 million years ago. In that era, we go immediately from single-celled organisms to creatures, which, while admittedly dont seem like much, are complex on the biological scale things like seaweeds, sponges, crustaceans, trilobites. And this jump takes place without fossil evidence of middle-level forms. In other words, creation took a giant leap without the slow, progressively changing process required by Darwins view. And this observation of dramatic change holds up for the beginnings of man also. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist who also happens to believe the Bible, comments, The best Hebrew scholarship places the Biblical date for the creation of Adam between 6,000 and 50,000 years ago. While bi-pedal, tool-using, large-brained hominids roamed the earth at least as long ago as one million years, evidence for religious relics and altars dates back only 8,000 to 24,000 years. Thus, the secular anthropological date for the first spirit creatures is in complete agreement with the Biblical date. Ross goes on to admit, Differences, however, between the Bible and secular anthropology remain. The Bible would deny that the hominids were men. It also

would deny that Adam was physically descended from these hominids. But even here science is discovering major differences between modern man and upright-walking hominids. This spring, scientists writing in the magazine Nature admitted that the DNA of man was significantly different than that of Neanderthal, the bushy-browed creatures often thought to be the missing link. So where does that leave us? The Bible's contention that life was created and that we should be able to tell so is strongly supported by the facts. While theres plenty of support for the theory of micro-evolution, macroevolution comes close to being totally ruled out by the evidence. So why do you still hear so much about evolution? Heres the Bibles take. Romans 1:18-20 says there is a tendency in each of us to resist the notion that we are created beings, even to the point of suppressing any data that comes along that would suggest we are. This verse tells us that God doesnt like this suppression of the truth about himself, mainly because its this desire of ours to keep God at arms length and set ourselves up as gods is the source of all the trouble in the world.

But, really, this is a desire based on a false suspicion about God, that He seeks to control us and make our lives miserable. John 10:10 gives us the real story about God and his desire toward us. I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full, Jesus says. If youre just checking out Christianity, the evidence from design in nature is one of the ways God is showing himself to all of us. But He's doing so in a way that leaves room for us to either choose for or against Him. We can look at creation and choose to keep pretending theres no God or we can choose to be open to the possibility He exists. And thats a decision you can make right now, to open yourself up to the idea there is a God. And if youre that far, why not open yourself up to the idea that this man Jesus might just be the revelation of God in human form, the one through whom we can know the creator of all this wonderful complexity we see around us.