"Questions About God and Life" Part 3
"Do the Bible and Modern Science Contradict Each Other?"

(Introductory statements on tape). Voices like this are being heard from many quarters today. Many who respect what science is telling us find it hard to reconcile that with what religion teaches. And since Christians are people of The Book, more than a few people are wondering: Can I accept what science is teaching and still believe the Bible? Hasn't modern science shown that at least some parts of the Bible are simply outdated, or in error?

We see this battle being played out in different ways today. For instance, in the whole question of creation verses evolution. Either you believe what the Bible says, that God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, or you believe what the scientists say, that we humans, over a broad span of time, evolved from lower life forms, as per Charles Darwin. You believe either one or the other.

We see it in the debate over the age of the earth. Scientists tell us the universe is about 14 billion years old, the earth about 4 billion years old. Others maintain that if you figure it out from the Bible, the earth is about 6,000 years old. An Archbishop named James Ussher, back in the early 1600’s, studied the genealogies of the Bible, and deduced that creation took place in 4004 B.C. Actually, he said, it took place the night before October 23rd, 4004 B.C.! Needless to say, scientists simply scoff at this.

We see this battle between religion and science to a lesser degree in the tendency to explain away the miracles of the Bible. A few years ago there was a newspaper report that the science department at Florida State University said that Jesus didn't really walk on water. They said some kind of event happened with the temperature of the water that caused a layer of ice to develop just below the surface of the water. So, for the disciples in the boat it would appear that Jesus was walking on water but He was really walking on ice.
One could ask, how come when Peter stepped out of the boat, he sank in the water? Their answer is that Jesus knew where the ice was and Peter didn't. This denial of the miracu- lous becomes most serious when the resurrection of Jesus is dismissed as something that couldn't have happened.

The conflict between religion and science is not new. Around 1500 A.D. Nicolaus Copernicus claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe, but that the earth moved around the sun. Copernicus was denounced by the church, which felt that this would mean humans are no longer at the center of God’s attention. Roughly 100 years later a Dutch optician named Galileo invented a telescope, and as he viewed the planets, he was convinced Copernicus was right and that the planets revolved around the sun. Galileo was brought before church authorities in 1633, and there, under the threat of torture and death, he was forced to his knees to renounce what he had claimed. Following that, he was sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his life.

The battle between religion and science is not new. It still rages today. And I think that both people of faith and people of science have contributed to the suspicion and animosity between the two camps.
For instance, many Christians have frustrated and angered those in the scientific community by their closed-minded approach to truth and their narrow interpretation of the Bible. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and an atheist. Among his numerous books is one called The God Delusion. He is quite evangelical in his desire to convert the world to his atheistic viewpoint. Why? Partly because he sees religious people attacking people like himself for what he believes are indisputable scientific facts. He sees religion and the belief in God as hindering scientific progress. He once wrote: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

We are talking here of the kind of religion that says, "God said it, I believe it, discussion over." Somebody has described this anti-scientific, anti-thinking faith as "the religion of the closed mind, hidebound to tradition, fearful of new truth, irrational, intolerant, born in ignorance, swaddled in sentimentality." It was typified in the 19th century when William Jennings Bryan, after solemnly stating he was convinced the whale swallowed Jonah, went on to add that if the Bible had said Jonah swallowed the whale, he would have believed that too!

This blind acceptance is alien to the scientific method, which forms a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, and then needs to verify that hypothesis before allowing for it to be true. So, a lot of scientifically minded people are turned off to Christians and religion and the Bible because they see them standing in the way of human progress.

But the scientific community has also done its part to create bad blood between science and faith and science and the Bible. Many scientists operate out of a naturalistic, mechanistic view of life, where there is no room for a God. What can’t be explained rationally and logically, nor reduced to cause and effect, for them just cannot be. There is no room for the supernatural in this closed worldview.

In spite of all the tension between religion and science, I believe that religion and science, the Bible and science, are not in conflict. Now one of the key factors here is how we understand and interpret the Bible.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. If it were a science textbook, it would have been outdated long ago. For example, writers of Scripture had a different cosmology, a different understanding of how the universe is shaped, than we know today. The Bible was written in a pre-scientific era, before all of the advances in astronomy, biology, physics, and the other sciences.

Much of the discussion today in the creation verses evolution debate hinges on how you interpret the creation stories found in Genesis 1 and 2. Is what we read in the Book of Genesis a literal account of the creation of the world? There are Bible scholars and Bible students who answer that question "yes". It follows, then, that if Genesis is a literal account of creation, then one either has to make what it says stack up with what scientists are telling us, or else say scientists are wrong.

But there are many scholars and students of the Bible who do not interpret Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal, scientific rendering of how creation came to be. Rather, they say, it is a theological document. It is written not to answer the questions how and when, but who and why. Science can probe into when the world was created, and how – but the writers of Scripture are more interested in telling us who created, and why!

You might be feeling a bit uneasy here and thinking, “Well, if you don’t think the story of creation and of Adam and Eve are literal accounts of what happened, then you don’t believe the Bible.” That's not true! Let me give you some of the rationale of those who do not take the first 3 chapters of Genesis as literal, historical narrative.

There are many different types of literature in the Bible. The Bible is collection of Hebrew
writings – history, drama, poetry, short story, wisdom literature, apocalyptic writing, and others. But all of these are inspired by God. For instance, Psalm 98 says, “Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy; let them sing before the Lord” (Psalm 98:8-9). Did you ever see the Susquehanna River clapping its hands? Have you ever driven to the Pocono mountains just to hear the mountains sing? This is poetry!

Look at the words of Jesus found in Matthew 5:27-30: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell." Did Jesus literally mean to tear out our right eye, or cut off our right hand? No. This is exaggeration, overstatement, to drive home a point!

Those who do not opt for seeing the first chapters of Genesis as literal accounts of creation say that what we have there is not literal history, but epic poetry, inspired theological truth. It tells us, for instance, that God made everything and is behind it all, and that God binds Himself to His creation. It tells us that creation is good - again and again we find that phrase, “and God saw that it was good”. It tells us that human beings are the crowning glory of God’s creation. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”(Genesis 1:27).

Then we move to Genesis, chapter 3, that divinely inspired word about the human condition. “Adam” is man (the Hebrew word for Adam means "man") - representative man – every man and woman. It is the story of all of us, in our rebellion against God!

Science is exploring the truth behind the questions of how and when the universe was made. But the more important questions of our existence are: Who made us. And why? Why are we here? What is the meaning of our sojourn on earth?

Do I have to take Genesis, chapter 1,2 and 3 literally to be a Christian? Of course not! However, there are Bible scholars who do hold to a literal view of Genesis. And there are some brilliant scholars among them.

The other day I spent time on the internet doing a search under “Biblical cosmology”. Cosmology has to do with our view of the universe and creation. There were numerous articles representing all kinds of opinions on how to understand the Biblical accounts of creation. Some argued for a literal rendering of the creation stories, others argued against.
And some of these articles were very difficult to understand, at least for me. (By the way, there is a debate over whether there are two creation stories in Genesis, or just one).

Some of those defending a literal view of creation in Genesis pointed out that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can also mean a span of time. So, perhaps we’re talking aeons here, not 6 twenty-four hour days. And there’s a school of thinking that opts for a much younger earth, based on certain other scientific discoveries.

You may ask, “What about evolution? Can I be a Christian and believe in evolution? Does the Biblical account negate the possibility of evolution?”

First of all, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is just that – a theory! And it’s often taught as fact. Yet, according to some scientists, his theory has holes in it. For example, Darwin predicted that we would find tons of fossils that would give evidence of small, successive evolutionary steps from one species to another, but we have found practically nothing. And it seems now that evolution from one species to another cannot happen. The fossil record shows species emerging and disappearing fully formed.

Sometimes we worship at the feet of science. But scientific knowledge is finite, imperfect and always changing. Scientists sometimes operate from a bias or from an agenda – such as their naturalistic view of the universe that leaves out God and the supernatural.

Does this mean that no evolutionary process is taking place? Not necessarily. There are theistic evolutionists. These are people who believe in a God, and that God is master- minding any evolutionary process. If you look at creation according to Genesis, it shows a progression from lower life forms to human life in Adam and Eve.

So what's the point I'm making? It's that there are various ways to interpret the Bible.

Just as an aside, I think we're seeing today a reaction to the dogmatic scientific view that rules out miracles and mystery. You've probably heard the term "postmodern". Many say we have moved from the modern into a postmodern era. And one of the hallmarks of postmodern thinking is a longing for a sense of miracle and mystery in life!

As we consider the whole matter of science and religion, we may ask, “What about the miracles in the Bible? I’ve already said that many scientists have a very biased view
regarding miracles and the supernatural. They work from the premise that is something cannot be explained or doesn't fit into their framework of reality, then it can’t be.

But if there’s a God, why can’t God move beyond the realm of what we know and understand? God is not limited to our closed worldview! Frankly, I find some of the explanations that are supposed to explain away miracles harder to believe than the miracles themselves! C. S. Lewis once said, “If we admit God, must we admit miracles? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it.” Many skeptics dismiss the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection, and completely overlook the historical evidence that verifies this Event upon which Christianity rests!

One of the most important things I hope for is that we will keep an open mind! Let's keep an open mind for what science is teaching us, and respect what scientists are doing. Christians never have to be afraid of what scientists may discover, for all truth is God’s truth! And I hope we keep an open mind for what the Bible is teaching us, and that there are different ways to interpret the Scriptures. And let me go on record as saying: I want Lititz United Methodist Church to be a church were people are allowed to think!

I want to take a moment to thank Carey Walton for the help she has been in the first three messages in this series. Carey is doing seminary work in Christian apologetics. She has a sharp mind. The last three Monday mornings we have spent some time talking about each upcoming sermon. Her knowledge has been very helpful, and some of the material in the messages that I've shared represents insights gained from conversations with Carey. We don't agree on everything, but she has been an invaluable resource for my preaching over the last three weeks.

Let me close by making a few comments about the reliability of the Bible. Even though the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it is amazing for its accuracy.

Though the creation stories in Genesis were written in a pre-scientific era, what they tell us in some ways flows right in with much of what we’re learning from science about creation.
For example, the Big Bang theory, which is about a hundred years old now, tells us that creation started with a "big bang". Who made the big bang? I think it's the Big God, who created something out of nothing!

Other parts of the Bible have been thought of as obscure, or wrong in detail, or historically inaccurate, and science or modern archeology has shown that the Bible is correct. For instance, in Job 38:31 God asks Job, “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?” It wasn’t
until 30-40 years ago that science discovered that the Pleiades, a group of several thousand stars, were in fact a “bound” star “cluster” held together gravitationally.

Look at Psalm 102:25-27. "Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end." I understand that this corresponds to the second law of thermodynamics – like when we have a flashlight, and the battery is dying - the universe is
running out of useable energy. It will eventually “perish”, just as it says in Psalm 102.

Recent excavations of Jericho in 1990 by archeologist Bryant Wood confirm that the Biblical account of Jericho is correct, when earlier excavations had cast doubt on the Bible's accuracy.

See, believing in science doesn’t mean we have to get rid of the Bible or that it is irrelevant. Believing the Bible is God’s Word doesn’t mean we have to put our brain in neutral and discount what science is learning about life and creation. A humbleness and openness to both modern science and the Bible will help us to see that they both represent God's truth, and that they go together.

Harry L. Kaufhold, Jr.
Preached at Lititz United Methodist Church
January 21, 2007

Back to Archive Listing