Science and Religion, a Reconciliation

I’d like to start with this quote from Abe Lincoln:

"When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should be adopted.

"It is an old and true maxim that a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall. So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.

"Therein is the drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what we will, when once gained you will find little trouble in convincing his judgement of the justice of your cause if indeed that cause really be a just one.

"On the contrary, assume to dictate his judgement, or to command his action, and he will retreat within himself, close all avenues to his head and heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, and though you throw it with Herculean force and precision, you will be no more able to pierce him than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.

"Such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to his own best interests."

How does one do that when discussing controversial subjects with folks that may be hostile to your position? First, you must convince them, or at least try, that you honestly respect their opinions and positions without reservation. You must also show them you are not trying to change their basic convictions. I shall earnestly try to do just that.

People can be very sensitive about their own personal belief systems, even when they stray from accuracy. To illustrate: A very good and pious farmer was standing in his yard watching flood waters slowly creeping up the little rise where his farmhouse stood. As he watched, a man in a pickup truck hurried up to his house shouting, "Hop in. I’ll take you to safety, but we must move fast before the road is flooded."

The farmer shook his head, "No, I’ll be okay. I will trust in the Lord to save me."

After great effort at persuading the farmer to go with him to no avail, the driver finally headed his pickup down the road away from the flood. It wasn’t long before the rising water had driven the farmer onto his porch. Suddenly a boat appeared in the water and the occupants shouted, "Climb in and we’ll take you to safety. The water’s rising fast."

Again, the farmer shook his head, "No, I’ll be okay. I will trust in the Lord to save me."

And again, the farmer resisted the pleading of the boaters until they too went away.

Another hour and the farmer was sitting on his chimney, the only part of his house that wasn’t under water. As the water crept up the chimney, a helicopter came down dropping a cable with a lift harness. A man in the helicopter shouted, "Fasten yourself into that harness and we’ll carry to the high ground."

Once more, the farmer shook his head, "No, I’ll be okay. I will trust in the Lord to save me."

And once more, his rescuers finally gave up and flew off.

Sometime later, a very soggy and angry farmer appeared at the pearly gates. When the gate keeper appeared, he complained bitterly, "I lived a good, Christian life, did many good works, gave to the church regularly and always kept the ten commandments. Why wasn’t I saved from the flood?"

The gate keeper turned to his computer saying, "Hang on there. Let me check the records to see what happened." After a few minutes he printed out a paper and handed it to the farmer. "See here? You weren’t forgotten. We sent a truck, then a boat, and finally we sent a helicopter.."

We may not always see God’s help as we imagine it. That certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

We all have opinions about almost everything. Some are our own, but most we borrow from others. Were I to ask each of you to voice an opinion on say, the meaning of the cross, we would hear probably similar but different opinions from each of you. Were we to repeat the process there would undoubtedly be those who would express an opinion different from what they first said. That would be true even if the subject were one about which we had very strong convictions. That is because each of us has had different lives, different experiences, different families, different friends and many other different inputs. There are also many opinions and beliefs we share with others. Is it not a shame that so often we let small differences divide us rather than use the vast majority, those things we have in common, to bring us together.

Consider the broad range of beliefs of Christians? Why then are there Methodists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, United Brethren, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Eastern Orthodox and numerous other denominations of Christians? I’m sorry if I left any of you out. Some even use different Bibles and may have radically different rituals and sacraments. This is not an ecumenical presentation, so don’t worry that I am trying to convert anyone. I’m not. What I am trying to do is to get you to see and maybe think about what we can have in common and not harden positions with our differences. Those differences, stiffened by heated arguments are what divide us. I hope to get you to take a new look at some of those supposed differences.

Faith as opposed to knowledge - belief as opposed to truth - religion as opposed to science - these I hope to reconcile in your minds during this presentation. It is my plan to deal with them, not in a confrontational manner as we have plenty of conflict in this world already, but instead, I will try an objective, conciliatory approach. I hope you will keep your minds open to ideas that may challenge or even aggravate you.

Even mention of the words, big bang, evolution or creation can raise the ire of many people. I will speak encouragingly of what these concepts and Christian beliefs have in common. First I will tackle the Big Bang theory.

I’m a scientist, an avid, but amateur cosmologist. I read and study about our universe and how it works. A number of years ago, cosmologists came up with a new theory about the creation and condition of the universe. Because of its explosive beginnings, this theory was dubbed the "Big Bang" theory. How many have heard of it? Basically the Big Bang theory states: there was absolutely nothing, no light, no matter, no energy of any kind. Suddenly there was an inconceivably huge explosion of light out of the blackness and our universe was born out of nothing..

Does that sound a bit familiar? In fact, the scientists who developed the Big Bang theory were startled at how much it sounded like the creation story in Genesis. They even mentioned the similarity in their first publications. Reading those publications, I was struck by the similarity and a thought clicked in my mind, "Couldn’t the Big Bang be the method God used to create the universe?" The Bible says nothing about how God created the heavens and the earth. It merely states that he did. If my thoughts were true, that could certainly shoot down the ongoing argument between scientists and creationists making it an irrelevant issue. I truly believe real differences between the Biblical account of the creation and scientific theory have almost completely disappeared.

In another example, the practice of medicine is still based on many of the same diseases and conditions present during biblical times, the methods used to treat those diseases and conditions have changed drastically in the last two thousand years. Because we have learned a great deal about disease and treatments, METHODS HAVE CHANGED. The basic scientific factors are nearly identical now as then. Only the methods of treatment have changed. Remember that!

My search for reconciling the conflicts about these ideas began many years ago. I was attending an adult Sunday school class where a new series was just beginning. Our teacher, the associate minister, wrote three words on the blackboard to introduce the new subject. "Religion" was written on the top left, "superstition" at the top center and "science" at the top right of the board. I felt very strongly about the false implications of this word placement and immediately raised my hand to object. With the teacher’s permission I made a change, placing "Religion" and "science" together at the top left and "superstition" at the top right. When he asked for my reasoning, I explained Religion and Science are both structured information systems based on truth and searches for truth while superstition had very little to do with either. I also told him and the class that, as both a scientist and a Christian, I believed those two real searches for truth should have nothing to fear from each other. A kind, intelligent and gracious man, he continued and taught the entire series adapting to my revised headings and concepts. This experience triggered a strong desire in me to organize my thoughts about this and try to find a way to bring the often differing views of science and religion in accord with each other. Many other life experiences have taught me much about the wrong assumptions made which contribute to this conflict. I believe it to be based on false reasoning, fear and misunderstanding by all sides.

Now, I have a few questions for you. How many know of the following people: the astronomer, Ptolemy - Nicolaus Copernicus - Giodorno Bruno - Galileo Galilei - Johannes Kepler - Sir Isaac Newton? - - - Does anyone know what these men have in common? - - - My little book, "Genesis 2001," contains information about these men and tells something of their lives. Several were contemporaries of Martin Luther. Each developed new astronomical theories, advancing man’s understanding of the universe.

The Ptolemy family were Greeks, several of whom ruled Egypt. Cleopatra was a Ptolemy. The famous astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, proposed the heavens were made up of rotating concentric crystal spheres nestled in each other like bowls. The stars were embedded in the outer sphere, while inner spheres held the sun, moon and planets. This theory of celestial spheres, with the earth as the center of the universe, was accepted for some 1500 years and was adopted by the early church. Near the end of the middle ages, navigators, calculating accurate positions using celestial objects, began finding flaws in the theory.

In 1543, Copernicus published his theory that the earth was only a part of the Sun’s family of planets. Because his theory overturned the Ptolemaic theory and removed the Earth from the center of the universe, he waited until he was on his deathbed to release it. In one brilliant stroke he demoted the earth and thus man, an idea that challenged the prevailing theological view of the Roman church.

Those few men who accepted his new theory were in mortal danger. The Italian monk, Giodorno Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting the sun might be a star. Galileo, a deeply religious man, tried to get the church to change its beliefs. When, at age seventy, he published his mathematical proof, backed up by observations with his telescope, it was submitted to the Roman church. He was severely reprimanded and barely escaped execution. As it was, he was held in virtual house arrest for the rest of his life after being forced to write a letter repudiating his earlier proof. Galileo’s additions to Copernican theory led Kepler to correct the circular orbits of the planets to the elliptical ones and this - not the apple - led Newton to his gravitational theory. In time, basic truths will always force their own recognition. Do any of you know when the Roman church finally acknowledged they were wrong, exonerated Galileo and abandoned Ptolemaic theory? Try the 1960's. Incidently, there is nothing in the Bible that disagrees with our present understanding of the place and movements of celestial objects. - - - There aren’t any flat-earth or Ptolemaic people in the room, are there?

I used this little bit of history to make a point. Science does not really take issue with the Bible, but only with some of man’s interpretations of the scripture. For example, define a day for me - anyone. - - - Right, actually, one revolution of the earth. Then how long was a day before the earth existed? So, how long was that first day described in Genesis? Think about it.

Here’s another example of a common misunderstanding - It is common knowledge that separation of church and state is part of our Constitution, right? Actually, that is a myth promoted by many for their own purpose. The words, "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in our Constitution. I use this to illustrate the major point of my reasoning for the ideas I will share with you. Unfortunately, many conflicts of ideas, even those leading to extreme violence, are based on different interpretations of words, both written and spoken, rather than the actual words themselves. Today I will try to show how much of the hubbub between science and religion is based not on the Bible, or the words of science, but on man’s interpretation, expansion, or corruption of those words.

The minister of a small, country church in the deep south was preaching on the difference between faith and knowledge. As he started his sermon he pointed to the family in a forward pew and said, "To illustrate the difference between faith and knowledge, I will use brother and sister Jones here and their three fine children. Sister Jones knows those children are hers. That’s knowledge. Brother Jones knows those children are his as well, but that’s faith." I hope you will keep your minds open to ideas that may challenge or even aggravate you.

I remember vividly from college days a discussion of evolution with a friend in my dorm who said evolution went against everything his religion taught him. At that time I had no idea how to reach his totally closed mind. Today he would be called a "creationist" with a thousand explanations about what is wrong with the theory of evolution. Many scientists would ridicule his explanations as non-factual or insignificant interpretations. I would now ask both sides, "Couldn’t evolution be the method God used to create man from the dust of the earth?" The theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or say God did not create man. However, it certainly could be considered as the method God used. I admit, it is a new and revolutionary way of viewing creation and evolution, but is it impossible?

Since that time I have had many heated and sometimes angry discussions with both scientists and others who were either religious or non-scientists. Many of these individuals were not open minded. The amazing thing I found was the strong similarity of the reasoning behind the arguments from the closed minds of both sides. While neither side thought much of the reasoning of the other, both despised my position because I had the audacity to question the existence of real disagreement between them. Recognizing the futility of reasoning with a closed mind, I decided to search for a method to at least get them to listen to something outside their belief structure. It has been far more difficult than I imagined, believe me. The closed mind of the scientist is as emotionally locked and hard to reach as that of any hardened fundamentalist. Neither reason nor logic will move their emotionally chosen position. I thought if I could get any one of them to listen rationally and with an open mind, there is ever the slightest chance they might realize how insignificant are the real differences.

We each have our own belief structure based on our life experiences and training. All religions and non-religions are belief structures. Even atheism is a belief structure. Our belief structure determines much of how we live and communicate with others. I am definitely not trying to scuttle or change anyone’s belief structure. I respect your beliefs and, given the opportunity, will listen to what you have to say. In this presentation we will deal with suppositions, theories, ideas and accepted facts, many of which seem to carry vast discrepancies. I hope you all will keep your minds open. At least wait until the Q & A session at the end before you beat me up.

In his version of the gospel, Luke wrote about the twelve-year-old Jesus questioning the priests at the temple in chapter 2, verses 46 and 47.

"After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers."

What questions do you think he might have asked? We do not know for certain, but by questions he asked later of the priests, we can surmise he challenged many of their expressed beliefs. Was he not a champion of the truth? I read you John 18:37

"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.

Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Was he not later crucified for challenging the expressed dogma of the religious leaders of the time?

It was Peter Abelard who said, "By doubting we are led to inquire; by inquiring we perceive the truth." When we have doubts or questions, should we not seek the truth?

Scientists are people just like the rest of us and have their own belief structures. Like most of us, they are quite loathe to change their minds once they commit to an opinion. They will squabble with each other over the true meaning of the most minute details.

Nearly fifty year ago, a paleontologist named Ostrom proposed a theory that birds were the remaining descendants of dinosaurs. That, in fact, birds were dinosaurs. This all started when he found fossils in some museums classified as small dinosaurs while the exact same creatures were considered birds at other museums. His theory was that certain small warm-blooded dinosaurs first developed feathers to retain body heat. Using their feathered arms for balance, they were better able to catch flying insects. Over time, these feathered arms became larger and partially supported the creatures as they chased and jumped after prey. Finally creatures evolved having feathered arms that could carry them short distances through the air. Over time, these feathered arms evolved into true wings and the first flying birds came into being. His "from the ground up" theory of the origin of flying birds was soundly chastised by many other paleontologists as being "ridiculous," since it was so far from accepted scientific dogma of the time.

Today, many scientists accept the theory, but there are still those diehards who don’t. Their belief structure prevents them from accepting this change despite what to me seems overwhelming evidence. I use this to illustrate the reason for different schools of thought among scientists is quite similar to the different denominations of Christian churches or factions in other religions. The truth, whatever it may be, has almost nothing to do with these sometimes divisive arguments. They are about differences in belief structures. It also illustrates just how damaging differences in belief structures can be.

My illustration also deals with the first, and most controversial difference between science and religion. That being evolution as opposed to creation for the origin of species including man. I personally see no conflict between the two. Look at it this way, could not evolution be the process by which God created all life? Admittedly, this requires a new way of thinking about creation, but does the theory of evolution say God could not be the one who made it happen? Absolutely not! Does the Bible say evolution could not be the process God used to create all the varied life on Earth? In truth, all these creation/evolution arguments are merely about interpretations of the method, and the time-table, not the facts.

Most Christians accept or think of the Bible as holy words, an inspired, divine work, or the revealed word of God. Whatever you think it to be, I certainly respect your belief. We know the written Bible to be very old. Bible scholars believe part of it existed as spoken words for centuries before it was written down. The Bible is an assembly of collections of works of philosophy, history, religion and law set down by groups of men for their own purposes, however lofty or God inspired those purposes may be. For the most part, it is the law, literature and history of the Hebrew peoples of the Jordan river area. Many parts directly contradict other parts when using literal meanings, but that merely represents differing views. Many writings and "books" were considered when the current Bible was assembled as a single work, but were left out for whatever reason.

During the time the old testament was written, the law recognized slavery and the ownership of women by their husbands. Travel was by oxcart, wagon or chariot, if you were rich and powerful. Most walked. There were no motors, pants, buttons, socks, zippers or nail clippers. No one had ever heard of dinosaurs or millions of other extinct life forms. Nearly all of our modern fields of knowledge, except for the most rudimentary, were non-existent. Everyone believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. It would be the fifteenth century before Christianity came to grips with that. Men would be put to death by the church for daring to propose what we know today are facts, but which then contradicted the church’s edicts.

In Biblical times there were no guns or gunpowder hand weapons and a new material, iron, was slowly replacing bronze for swords, plows, arrowheads and axes. Oxen pulled the plows of the well-to-do while poor men pulled their own plows. Horses were ridden only by the military, the wealthy and the elite. Many people of northern Europe, Africa, northern Asia and the Americas were warring tribal groups, still in or just emerging from the stone age. China was the overwhelming civilization in the Far East and the Americas had several advanced civilizations totally unknown to Europe, Africa and Asia. The entire world outside the Mediterranean area was virtually unknown to the people of the Middle East. The Mediterranean was the center of the then western world and Rome held the sea and most of the people around it including Palestine. Even when the Gospels were written many years after the events, little had changed. They were written in the language and understanding of that day and place: first century Roman empire.

There is a huge knowledge gulf between then and today. Most of our rapidly expanding store of knowledge has been gained in the last century. Careful research has yielded a consistently more accurate time scale for most events in the life of our universe. Theories of the timing and scale of events have been proposed, accepted, and then discarded or replaced by other theories. As each theory was based on the knowledge and understanding at the time, new knowledge triggered new, supposedly truer theories. We could say our knowledge and theories "evolved" in the direction of better understanding, accuracy, or truth. At least that is the intent of those who search and the hope of the rest of us.

Unfortunately, many closed minded zealots think and act as if any knowledge which disagrees with their own personal faith is false. Our knowledge changes as understanding increases and our faith should follow our knowledge closely or serious conflicts can arise. Those atheistic zealots who preach that modern science has proven there is no God, are as misguided as any extreme religious zealot. They are simply the other side of the same coin. In undeniable fact, there is an order to the universe that demands a universal power with which we learn to adapt or perish. Gravity is but one undeniable example of God’s laws.

Not too many years back, certainly within the memory of most of us here, a new theory of the creation of the universe was proposed. Most scientists of today, particularly cosmologists, now believe this so called "Big Bang" theory is essentially correct. The theory is that the universe was suddenly created from out of nothing in a huge explosion; thus the name, "Big Bang." To some scientists, the most disturbing aspect of this new theory was how much it resembled the creation story in Genesis. With very few adjustments, the creation story in Genesis would describe the Big Bang precisely. Those adjustments are well within the range of the language of the Bible. Could not this theory be simply a more accurate explanation of how God created the universe? The only really significant difference is the time scale. And couldn’t God’s day of the seven days of creation represent billions of years? After all, until the earth revolved and was in orbit around the sun, there was no such time measurement as a day. Could the people of Biblical times even conceive of a time period as long as a billion years? I rather doubt it. Civilization itself was then only a few thousand years old.

Religious groups sometimes use differing parts, differing wording or differing interpretations of the Bible as the basis for their particular sect or denomination. The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book. There are several popular English versions including the King James, the American Standard and the New International. Though these different translations may be relatively accurate in changing the ancient words into today's English, they still address the reader as if current knowledge had not advanced since then. It still speaks as it did when it was written; to the people of that time and with the knowledge of that day. I know of no translation of the Bible that speaks directly to today's people using today's scientific knowledge as a basis.

Language itself is not static. It is constantly changing with new words being created, old words being discarded or having changed meanings. If any of you have read Chaucer you know the English of the Canterbury Tales to be vastly different from today’s American English. It’s almost a different language entirely; not as different as French for instance, but far more different than British English or the many dialects used in our own country. The differences between the King James, American standard and NIV Bibles, illustrate my meaning. These differences are sometimes the engines that drive conflicting views of the different denominations. Someone once posed the question, "Why is it that men let small differences divide them rather than using the far greater number of things held in common to bring them together." Religious scholars and scientists - creationists and evolutionists - even fundamentalists and Big Bang theorists, hold far more in common with each other than they hold different. Sadly, they concentrate on their differences, close their minds and make impassioned, divisive condemnations. These are so frequently artificial differences of time scale, method or procedure having little to do with real understanding.

The Bible says God created man from the dust of the earth. Current scientific understanding says after the Big Bang, giant stars eventually coalesced from clouds of hydrogen gas. These giant stars lived relatively short lives as their hydrogen fuel was converted stepwise into other elements until finally they exploded in a super nova. In this explosion, star dust containing all the elements of our planet, spewed out through space. Later, this star dust combined with clouds of hydrogen gas and coalesced into the sun and planets. Life sprung up using this star dust and finally evolved into the life forms of today including man. Thus, in the scientific view, man was literally created out of the dust of the earth. Since the dust of the earth is actually star dust, it follows that the two stories are the same. The second is merely a more detailed explanation of how God created Man. I see no conflict here at all, only confirmation.

I want to share with you a saying I wrote and then honed thoughtfully into its present form nearly twenty years ago. Since then it has been one of my guiding thoughts.

When truth and belief come to conflict
it is better to change one’s belief to fit the truth
than to change the truth to fit one’s belief.
Beliefs are the creations of men
while Truths are the creations of God!

To request more information or to arrange to schedule a talk, please . . . Click here to email me!

Click here to view the list of HJ talks and books.

To contact author, Howard Johnson Click Here!