Theology vs. Science

[bdfoster]

God gave us scripture, and God gave us creation. He is the author of both. Is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of creation to affect our interpretation of scripture? As a theistic evolutionist I usually answer this question yes. But conversly, is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of scripture to affect our interpretation of creation? As a scientist my knee jerk reaction is to say "no way!". But how can you honestly answer yes to one and not the other? After further reflection, I have to answer yes to both questions. But scientific studies should not force scripture to say something it doesn't say. And theological studies should not force creation to say something it doesn't say.

I hope the poll choices are clear. It's really two yes or no questions. But I want to make one poll so there will be four choices, and as always other

 

[SBG]

Do you think the Holy Spirit is sufficient enough to teach us what is in His Book on HIs own or do you think we need the interpretations of scientists to help us?

Edit:

I do not believe science should be used as our interpretative guide to scripture. And I tend to lean towards the fact that theology shouldn't be used to do scientific studies.

I do think that every scientists ought to keep in mind who created everything and what the Bible says. In everything we do, we should keep this in our hearts, the Bible does say this after all. I guess this probably puts me in the yes rather than no.

 

[Matthew777]

God gave us scripture, and God gave us creation. He is the author of both. Is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of creation to affect our interpretation of scripture?

Not if science' conclusions on the creation contradict the traditional understanding of Scripture.

St. Theophan the Recluse wrote: "The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations". "Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them". "Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power nor the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things."
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[gluadys]

But conversly, is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of scripture to affect our interpretation of creation? As a scientist my knee jerk reaction is to say "no way!". But how can you honestly answer yes to one and not the other?

I also answered "yes" to both, but with the same hesitation. I am still not sure that theology should influence science, and I am absolutely sure it should not influence science in an AiG/ICR way when one refuses to consider evidence which may possibly falsify your theology.

But I still answered "yes" because, like it or not, theology does influence science. Scientists are human. They have theologies. And philosophies and ideologies and preconceptions they take for granted. And all these things enter into how they do science and how they interpret science.

Stephen J. Gould has a number of interesting essays on how the zeitgeist of the times influences what questions scientists ask, how they study them and how they present their findings.

How might evolution, for example, have been described if Darwin and his peers had lived in a socialist country and espoused a socialist philosophy instead of Victorian England, home of laissez-faire capitalism and the virtues of competition? It certainly would not have been reframed as "survival of the fittest" and used to justify social Darwinism.

Or how would we imagine the beginning of the universe if most physicists were female instead of male? One feminist critic of science suggests we might be talking about the "great hatching" instead of the "big bang".

Such images, of course, are not science itself, but descriptive models like the various models of the atom that have come and gone. Or the artistic transformation of Java Man from ape-like "missing link" to respectable nearly human Homo erectus. None of the images or models change the basic scientific observations and conclusions. But they do have a significant impact on how we think about them.

 

[Remus]

Has anyone ever made a poll that someone didn’t come up with an option that was missing or some problem with the wording?

On the surface, I would like to say ‘yes’ to both, but I can see a major problem with using the term “science” (as it is commonly defined) as the “study of creation”. Can you clarify what you mean by “science”?

Also, if theology and science disagree, should there be one that takes precedence over the other? If so, which one?

 

[PaladinValer]

I believe a famous someone said (paraphrasing here):

"Religion with science is dumb; science without religion is devoid"

 

[Delta One]

Hello bdfoster,

Is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of creation to affect our interpretation of scripture?

I believe that it [process science] can aid in developing theories to assist Christians in explaining how God may have created certain people, e.g. Dr Humphreys' theory of how we can see starlight from distant stars millions of lightyears [NOTE: a lightyear is a measure of distance NOT time] away in a young universe as outlined in his book Starlight and Time. These theories are, however, limited to how the Scripture was meant to be taken. If the theory contradicts the Scripture, it is scrapped and a new theory is thought up.

But since the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, as all Christians must believe, then it is only logical to base the science that one does on His infallible Word; listen to what James Clerk Maxwell believed regarding the Bible linked with science (process science - he was a staunch opponent of evolution [I do not define evolution as science as I don't believe that it validates as science]), from 21 Great Scientists who believed the Bible by Ann Lamont:

Maxwell was convinced that scientific investigation and the teachings of the Bible were not only compatible but should be linked together. This was reflected in a prayer found among his notes: "Almighty God, Who has created man in Thine own image, and made him a living soul that he might seek after Thee, and have dominion over Thy creatures, teach us to study the works of Thy hands, that we may subue the earth to our use, and strengthen the reason for Thy service; so to receive Thy blessed Word, that we may believe on Him Whom Thou has sent, to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins. All of which we ask in the name of the same Jesus Christ, our Lord."

In this prayer, Maxwell affirmed his belief in the teachings found in the Book of Genesis - God is the Creator, who made man in His own image, and gave man control over and responsibility for the animals. The second part of the prayer contains the Gospel message - that Jesus Christ was sent by God to save us from our sins.

Also, if theology and science disagree, should there be one that takes precedence over the other? If so, which one?

Nice question Remus!

God Bless,

Delta One.