My kids just got into the Jubilee channel on YouTube. Each episode of Jubilee brings people who have disagreements together to try to hash out their opposing opinions. They have shows about everything from abortion to immigration to everything in between. On one of the episodes, two sides debate whether the earth is flat or not. Of the three proponents that the earth is flat, two of the three were Christians. The three opponents were all scientists.

How did we get here? How did we get to a place where it feels as though one of the tenants of Christianity is to oppose scientific inquiry?

Christian friends, we’ve got to do better.

A Rich History

For many today, the perception is that you must choose between Christianity and science. How sad. Christianity used to be the leading institution on earth for scientific inquiry. Sir Francis Bacon (16th century) popularized the scientific method.  Galileo (16th century) made massive advances in astronomy. Nicholas Copernicus (16th century) advanced a heliocentric theory of the universe. Johannes Kepler (16th century) discovered laws on planetary motion in the 1600s. Blaise Pascal (17th century) establish the foundation for probability theory and made significant advances in physics. Sir Isaac Newton (17th century) discovered the three laws of motion and formulated the notion of gravity. Robert Boyle (19th century) made significant advances in chemistry. Michael Faraday’s (19th century) theories formed the foundation for modern computers. Gregor Mendel (19th century) created the foundations for modern genetics. William Kelvin (19th century) was part of a small group of scientists who laid the foundations of modern physics. Max Planck (20th century) created quantum theory. Lise Meiter (20th century) discovered nuclear fission.[i]

Many Christians still labor hard in the halls of science. Francis Collins led the Human Genome Project. Andrew Pinsent contributed to the creation of the Large Electron-Positron Collider at CERN. And Mike Hulme is a leading climatologist.[ii]

And yet the public perception is that Christianity is anti-science.

A Line in the Sand

The unfortunate reality is that this perception is not without merit. There are not a few Christians, who, with good intentions, have drawn a line in the sand at evolution. You can sum up that argument: you either believe in the Bible or you believe in evolution.[iii] In the words of one such proponent, “If God used evolution, God came from an ape.”[iv]

I laud anyone who seeks understanding and digs deeper into important issues. Seek understanding. There is no doubt that Genesis 1 and 2 may describe a literal six-day creation. And, as a Christian, if that is what God is saying, then I need to trust him at his word.

Other Interpretations?

But may our posture ultimately be one of humility, not hubris, of charity, not divisiveness. And there are many Bible-believing Christians who believe that Genesis 1 is poetic and, while describing ultimate truths about God and creation, does not do so in a way that defines the manner or timeline in which God created everything out of nothing.

This is an important conversation, and one that faithful Christians can come down on different sides of.

 I’m grateful to have grown up in a Christian home where my mom was a scientist. There was not the perception that there was in any way a conflict between our Christian beliefs and science. Quite the opposite, I was raised to trust the Bible and also see scientific inquiry as an innately good thing.

Essentials

As Christians, there are essentials to our faith that have scientific ramifications. We believe in a God who created everything out of nothing. We believe that God became flesh. We believe that Jesus rose again from the dead. Each of these essentials draws a line in our understanding of scientific inquiry and discovery.

But we need to be careful that we don’t expand our list of essentials, and by doing so create unnecessary lines in the sand. In other words, we need to understand what are intramural debates and what are extramural debates.

Two Scenarios

Why does this matter? Two scenarios reveal the weakness of saying that Christian belief cannot include evolution.

The first scenario is of a young man or woman who has grown up in an evangelical church and learned that the only possible interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is through the lens of a literal six-day creation. Any other interpretation places one firmly on the path of unbelief.

That young man or woman heads to their local university only to be confronted at every turn with professors in nearly every field who not only argue for evolution, they assume it. If we have created a fork in the road for this 18-year-old where they either choose to remain a Christian and fight nearly every one of their professors or they believe their professors and depart from their childhood faith.

I believe this is an unnecessary fork in the road. Such dogmatism potentially leads young men and women to abandon their faith over a non-essential issue. How discouraging.

The second scenario is a Christian who holds to the necessity of a literal six-day creation in conversation with an educated unbelieving interlocutor. There is a spiritual interest on behalf of the unbeliever. They’re thirsting for something more and intrigued by who Jesus is and what he did. But then evolution comes up. The conversation about becoming a Christian will inevitably gravitate to this topic as it’s a topic that the unbelieving person has more familiarity with. If there are two hurdles to belief (evolution and Jesus), then they are likely to stay on the topic that they feel they know more about (a natural, human instinct).

And here is the rub: now this evangelistic conversation is a debate about creation and not a discussion about Jesus. The Christian will first need to convince the unbeliever of a literal six-day creation before then moving to the identity of Christ. That seems like an unnecessary barrier to faith. And it seems like an inversion of the order of belief both in terms of necessity and in terms of logic.

An Encouragement

Let me reiterate that the intention of this post isn’t to advocate for any position regarding the creation of the world, other than that God himself is the Creator. My hope is to encourage Christians to reclaim God’s mandate as leaders in the arena of science. That isn’t an encouragement to capitulate to the sacred cow of secular science, but rather to be thoughtful, humble, and clear on this important issue.  

 

Photo by Hal Gatewood on Unsplash

 

[i] https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

[ii] https://relevantmagazine.com/god/9-groundbreaking-scientists-who-happened-be-christians/

[iii] https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/can-evolutionist-be-creationist/

[iv] Ken Ham. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/public-schools-are-visiting-ken-hams-creation-museum.html.