The Biblical Theology of Science

[MessianicMichael]

https://biblicaltheologyofscience.wordpress.com/


In the 21st century, the idea of a Biblical Theology of Science seems like an oxymoron, as increasing numbers of both people of faith and the secular minded perceive a growing gap between the high profile scientific issues of the day and the core convictions of Bible believers. Science is evolving toward more of a public policy tool to bolster and propagate secular world views and away from an objective and powerful method for describing the orderly behavior of the natural world for the purpose of fulfilling God’s Biblical mandates for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.

Man and woman were created in the image of God and crowned with glory and honor to rule over God’s creation, over the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the seas. My purpose is to elucidate the Biblical revelation regarding both the purpose of science as well as the the process of science, to provide illuminating examples how both the purposes and processes have been applied consistently with Biblical revelation in the service of God’s mandates to mankind, as well as to provide illuminating examples how science has been misused by deviations from proper method and purposes. Math and science are gifts from God to empower man to fulfill the roles for which he was created.

The most obvious ongoing conflict between Biblical theology and modern “science” are naturalistic theories of origins (universe, solar system, life, species). People of faith take different approaches to the resolution of this conflict, and resolutions range along a continuous spectrum. One extreme of reconciling modern science with Biblical views is the acceptance of major changes to the historical understanding of Biblical revelation that accommodate naturalistic theories of origins with little or no modification of 21st century secular consensus. The other extreme expresses views that completely reject science on many fronts in order to preserve an unmodified historical understanding of Biblical revelation.

It is to the credit of free societies that nearly every possible middle ground between these extremes has been considered, propounded, debated, and has some adherents. We make no apology for our view that the Bible is ultimate measure of truth and that nature, natures laws, and the epistemology for discerning truth in every area must be consistent with Biblical revelation. We believe that science and natural law must be viewed and interpreted through the lens of Scripture.

 

[Willtor]

Considering the number of Christians in science, even in areas that are controversial in the American church, it's hard to accept the narrative that these fields are inherently in conflict with the faith, or that their proponents are necessarily secular in their worldviews.

 

[juvenissun]

https://biblicaltheologyofscience.wordpress.com/


In the 21st century, the idea of a Biblical Theology of Science seems like an oxymoron, as increasing numbers of both people of faith and the secular minded perceive a growing gap between the high profile scientific issues of the day and the core convictions of Bible believers. Science is evolving toward more of a public policy tool to bolster and propagate secular world views and away from an objective and powerful method for describing the orderly behavior of the natural world for the purpose of fulfilling God’s Biblical mandates for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.

Man and woman were created in the image of God and crowned with glory and honor to rule over God’s creation, over the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the seas. My purpose is to elucidate the Biblical revelation regarding both the purpose of science as well as the the process of science, to provide illuminating examples how both the purposes and processes have been applied consistently with Biblical revelation in the service of God’s mandates to mankind, as well as to provide illuminating examples how science has been misused by deviations from proper method and purposes. Math and science are gifts from God to empower man to fulfill the roles for which he was created.

The most obvious ongoing conflict between Biblical theology and modern “science” are naturalistic theories of origins (universe, solar system, life, species). People of faith take different approaches to the resolution of this conflict, and resolutions range along a continuous spectrum. One extreme of reconciling modern science with Biblical views is the acceptance of major changes to the historical understanding of Biblical revelation that accommodate naturalistic theories of origins with little or no modification of 21st century secular consensus. The other extreme expresses views that completely reject science on many fronts in order to preserve an unmodified historical understanding of Biblical revelation.

It is to the credit of free societies that nearly every possible middle ground between these extremes has been considered, propounded, debated, and has some adherents. We make no apology for our view that the Bible is ultimate measure of truth and that nature, natures laws, and the epistemology for discerning truth in every area must be consistent with Biblical revelation. We believe that science and natural law must be viewed and interpreted through the lens of Scripture.

How do you treat a verse of Bible if it does not fit the current scientific understanding?

 

[Papias]

https://biblicaltheologyofscience.wordpress.com/


In the 21st century, ....

3 messages. So are you a hit & run?

 

[MessianicMichael]

How do you treat a verse of Bible if it does not fit the current scientific understanding?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The word of God does not change.

"The current scientific understanding" is usually a consensus of fallen man. Which do you trust, the consensus of fallen man, or the infallible word of God?

Most purported "conflicts" are not really about questions of science at all (natural law), but rather reconstructions of history based on the naturalistic presupposition that miracles do not occur. Therefore, any claim made by a scientist that a historical miracle did not occur as the Bible describes is not a conflict, it is an invalid circular argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The word of God does not change.

"The current scientific understanding" is usually a consensus of fallen man. Which do you trust, the consensus of fallen man, or the infallible word of God?

Most purported "conflicts" are not really about questions of science at all (natural law), but rather reconstructions of history based on the naturalistic presupposition that miracles do not occur. Therefore, any claim made by a scientist that a historical miracle did not occur as the Bible describes is not a conflict, it is an invalid circular argument.

Agreed.

 

[Willtor]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The word of God does not change.

"The current scientific understanding" is usually a consensus of fallen man. Which do you trust, the consensus of fallen man, or the infallible word of God?

As it turns out, this argument is identical to the one that said that the Earth traveled around the Sun, and that the Earth was round, before it. If you were able to talk to someone from the earlier times, and said that the Earth was round, and he accused you of infidelity to the Bible, would you change your mind on the question of the shape of the Earth?

 

[MessianicMichael]

As it turns out, this argument is identical to the one that said that the Earth traveled around the Sun, and that the Earth was round, before it. If you were able to talk to someone from the earlier times, and said that the Earth was round, and he accused you of infidelity to the Bible, would you change your mind on the question of the shape of the Earth?

You appear to be ignorant of the distinction between operational science and historical reconstructions based on the presupposition of naturalism. The questions of origins are fundamentally historical. The questions of whether the earth is round and whether it goes around the sun is fundamentally operational.

See:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.4245.pdf

A minority of Christians (the elite powers of the Catholic Church) may have persecuted Galileo and others for disagreeing with points of medieval Catholic doctrine, but the doctrines that resulted in the persecution of Galileo were based on much flimsier Scriptural support and poor hermaneutics.

In contrast, the doctrines of six day creation, man and women being created at the beginning, and the absence of sin and death before the fall are firmly supported with sound hermaneutics and a broad range of Scriptures. Further, there is nothing in operational science that contradicts the traditional interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

 

[Willtor]

You appear to be ignorant of the distinction between operational science and historical reconstructions based on the presupposition of naturalism. The questions of origins are fundamentally historical. The questions of whether the earth is round and whether it goes around the sun is fundamentally operational.

...

Is that important? I thought this was about science and Scripture. If "operational" science disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture, is it the science that goes out the window?

 

[MessianicMichael]

Is that important? I thought this was about science and Scripture. If "operational" science disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture, is it the science that goes out the window?

Having earned a PhD in science and published over 100 scholarly papers and studied science for many decades as well as studying Scripture for many decades, I am not aware of a single instance where a valid conclusion of operational science disagrees with Scripture. Without a tangible example, there is no value in the hypothetical discussion.

Scripture makes only a few definitive claims that might be falsified with operational science. Operational observations of the absence of sin, death, and/or poverty in a large society over a prolonged period are possible examples.

The purported disagreements between "science" and Scripture all boil down to historical questions of "What happened?" rather than operational questions like "What are the laws of nature?" The real conflict is with the mistaken presupposition that miracles never occur that is implicit in methodological naturalism. Thus, the conflict is not with the conclusions, but with the assumptions.

 

[Willtor]

Having earned a PhD in science and published over 100 scholarly papers and studied science for many decades as well as studying Scripture for many decades, I am not aware of a single instance where a valid conclusion of operational science disagrees with Scripture. Without a tangible example, there is no value in the hypothetical discussion.

Scripture makes only a few definitive claims that might be falsified with operational science. Operational observations of the absence of sin, death, and/or poverty in a large society over a prolonged period are possible examples.

The purported disagreements between "science" and Scripture all boil down to historical questions of "What happened?" rather than operational questions like "What are the laws of nature?" The real conflict is with the mistaken presupposition that miracles never occur that is implicit in methodological naturalism. Thus, the conflict is not with the conclusions, but with the assumptions.

As I mentioned, there was a time when they did come into conflict. You say the interpretations that make them come into conflict were flimsy. Frankly, I think the same of the creationist interpretation. But it doesn't matter because it doesn't address the underlying question: When someone is forced to conclude a thing that contradicts his/her interpretation of Scripture, what to do?

 

[MessianicMichael]

Having earned a PhD in science and published over 100 scholarly papers and studied science for many decades as well as studying Scripture for many decades, I am not aware of a single instance where a valid conclusion of operational science disagrees with Scripture. Without a tangible example, there is no value in the hypothetical discussion.

Scripture makes only a few definitive claims that might be falsified with operational science. Operational observations of the absence of sin, death, and/or poverty in a large society over a prolonged period are possible examples.

The purported disagreements between "science" and Scripture all boil down to historical questions of "What happened?" rather than operational questions like "What are the laws of nature?" The real conflict is with the mistaken presupposition that miracles never occur that is implicit in methodological naturalism. Thus, the conflict is not with the conclusions, but with the assumptions.

As I mentioned, there was a time when they did come into conflict. You say the interpretations that make them come into conflict were flimsy. Frankly, I think the same of the creationist interpretation. But it doesn't matter because it doesn't address the underlying question: When someone is forced to conclude a thing that contradicts his/her interpretation of Scripture, what to do?

The right approach is to let Scripture interpret Scripture and "let every matter be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

Based on Genesis alone (a single witness), there might be room for doubting the doctrines of a six day creation, man and woman being created at the beginning, and the absence of sin and death prior to the fall. But we have the additional witnesses of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit confirming these doctrines with multiple witnesses throughout Scripture.

Who wrote on a stone tablet with his own finger, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day"?

Who testified, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female' "? Was he testifying only as someone who read and learned from the Genesis account, or was he an eyewitness to the event?

 

[Willtor]

The right approach is to let Scripture interpret Scripture and "let every matter be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

This is a passage talking about people in the case of bringing a case against someone -- you don't simply accept one person's testimony against another. A hermeneutic based on this is going to be fraught with error.

Based on Genesis alone (a single witness), there might be room for doubting the doctrines of a six day creation, man and woman being created at the beginning, and the absence of sin and death prior to the fall. But we have the additional witnesses of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit confirming these doctrines with multiple witnesses throughout Scripture.

Who wrote on a stone tablet with his own finger, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day"?

Who testified, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female' "? Was he testifying only as someone who read and learned from the Genesis account, or was he an eyewitness to the event?

This is not a response to the question I asked. I'd like to finish that discussion before we move onto this one, since its result will be relevant.

 

[MessianicMichael]

The false claim that naturalistic interpretations of history contradict Scripture has already been answered. It may be that some people are conveniently ignoring the answer that has already been given.

One wonders why someone might be slow to acknowledge Jesus' testimony as an eyewitness to creation when he said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female' ".

One wonders why someone might be slow to acknowledge that it was Yahweh who testified with his own finger on the tablet of stone, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day".

When a claim contradicts Scripture, both the claim and the interpretation of Scripture may be re-examined. In this case, the doctrine of six day creation holds up, and the claim of a scientific contradiction has been found faulty (fallacy of circular argument).

 

[juvenissun]

Is that important? I thought this was about science and Scripture. If "operational" science disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture, is it the science that goes out the window?

Wrong attitude. It is not the science which goes out the window (it will go eventually). But it is the Scripture which STAYS!

 

[juvenissun]

As I mentioned, there was a time when they did come into conflict. You say the interpretations that make them come into conflict were flimsy. Frankly, I think the same of the creationist interpretation. But it doesn't matter because it doesn't address the underlying question: When someone is forced to conclude a thing that contradicts his/her interpretation of Scripture, what to do?

The (contradictory) conclusion must be tentative. Keep working on it.
The Scripture is the light house. It says the truth literally.

An easy, but a bad, way out: Assign an allegorical interpretation to the Scripture. So everyone can breath.

 

[MessianicMichael]

Is that important? I thought this was about science and Scripture. If "operational" science disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture, is it the science that goes out the window?

So if science can trump an interpretation of Scripture, answer these questions:

1. Is it your interpretation of Scripture that homosexuality is a sin?

2. If at some future time, the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that some homosexuals are definitely born gay, would you revise your interpretation of Scripture and conclude that homosexuality is not a sin?

3. Why or why not?

 

[Willtor]

The false claim that naturalistic interpretations of history contradict Scripture has already been answered. It may be that some people are conveniently ignoring the answer that has already been given.

One wonders why someone might be slow to acknowledge Jesus' testimony as an eyewitness to creation when he said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female' ".

One wonders why someone might be slow to acknowledge that it was Yahweh who testified with his own finger on the tablet of stone, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day".

When a claim contradicts Scripture, both the claim and the interpretation of Scripture may be re-examined. In this case, the doctrine of six day creation holds up, and the claim of a scientific contradiction has been found faulty (fallacy of circular argument).

One wonders why someone else wants to change the topic before finishing the first one.

So if science can trump an interpretation of Scripture, answer these questions:

1. Is it your interpretation of Scripture that homosexuality is a sin?

2. If at some future time, the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that some homosexuals are definitely born gay, would you revise your interpretation of Scripture and conclude that homosexuality is not a sin?

3. Why or why not?

No, that is not my interpretation. But we aren't allowed to discuss this on CF. Not that it matters -- morality is not dependent on whether something is natural. Again, this is a smokescreen against the question I asked you. If you don't want to answer, just say so and we can change the topic. But my response to all of your questions is dependent on that point.

 

[Willtor]

Wrong attitude. It is not the science which goes out the window (it will go eventually). But it is the Scripture which STAYS!

As mentioned above, this is not at issue. The question is whether the science goes out the window?

The (contradictory) conclusion must be tentative. Keep working on it.
The Scripture is the light house. It says the truth literally.

An easy, but a bad, way out: Assign an allegorical interpretation to the Scripture. So everyone can breath.

Is the Earth round? If so, you've taken the easy, but bad, way out.

 

[MessianicMichael]

As mentioned above, this is not at issue. The question is whether the science goes out the window?

You seem to be ignoring the repeated answer that science does not go out the window, but that the sphere and boundaries of science are bounded in such a way that real science cannot contradict Scripture. Perhaps you are capable of grasping that science must be wrong in all cases where it seems to disagree with the moral imperatives of Scripture. Acknowledging that is progress.

Perhaps your eyes might also be opened to the limitations inherent in historical reconstructions based on the assuption that miracles never occur. If the method assumes miracles do not occur, the conclusions of the method do not contradict Scripture, the assumptions do!

Begin Exact Quote (Gould 1984, p. 11):

METHODOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS ACCEPTED BY ALL SCIENTISTS

1) The Uniformity of law - Natural laws are invariant in space and time. John Stuart Mill (1881) argued that such a postulate of uniformity must be invoked if we are to have any confidence in the validity of inductive inference; for if laws change, then an hypothesis about cause and effect gains no support from repeated observations - the law may alter the next time and yield a different result. We cannot "prove" the assumption of invariant laws; we cannot even venture forth into the world to gather empirical evidence for it. It is an a priori methodological assumption made in order to practice science; it is a warrant for inductive inference (Gould, 1965).

End Exact Quote (Gould 1984, p. 11)

Gould, Stephen Jay. "Toward the vindication of punctuational change."Catastrophes and earth history (1984): 9-16.
also see:
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Is uniformitarianism necessary?" American Journal of Science 263.3 (1965): 223-228.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Time's arrow, time's cycle: Myth and metaphor in the discovery of geological time. Harvard University Press, 1987.