Resize 
Related
The Christian stereotype has been around for a long time, one of the keywords being anti-science (evolutionary theory in particular) or plain stupid. It is obvious why the battle between religion and science portrayed in pop culture and common belief seems plausible; the Genesis six-day story versus the physics 14 billion-year theory triggers a red flag immediately. And while scientists have their replicable experiments, measurable methods and observable results, theologians fall short on those kinds of scientific facts and evidence. However, there are some solid, testable facts about science and religion/Christianity that you may not know.
Francis Collins, director of National Institute of Health, is a prestigious geneticist and medical doctor. He is best known for his leadership of the Human Genome Project and landmark discoveries of disease genes. Described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time,” Francis Collins is also a Christian, a Christian by choice and a Christian who takes his religious belief seriously. Indeed, he is a Christian who believes in and provides evidence for — you got it — the evolutionary theory.
I am not going to give a random guess or pick some numbers from Google to show how many Christians do not see Darwin as an enemy because that is not the reason why I write this piece. Francis Collins said in an interview, “I actually do not believe that there are any collisions between what I believe as a Christian and what I know and have learned about as a scientist.” But many are not like that. An award-winning chemistry professor who is also a faithful Christian once said in a meeting that he had felt like he was living a “double-life.” That is why I am writing this guest column. I never deny the existence of border between religion and science, nor do I see it as a battlefield.
Leave a comment 24 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
I'm not sure why both the Christian and scientific establishments are so frightened of one another. My question to the scientific establishment: why not have people question your proclamations? Why the system of apprehensions? Certainly nothing is withdrawn from the grandeur of our scientific theories to suspect that they're incomplete, partial, inconclusive, and they don't have a monopoly on everything that is important to the human heart. Why the anxiety? This is just perfectly obvious. This isn't controversial. Anybody who participates in the sciences knows this is true. We have a tiny of appreciation on reality by means of the great physical theories, but that's all we have, a tiny window. Why do we say that this tiny window is a huge vista, like a cathedral ceiling, when in fact it's a small opening?
By the way, you may as well mention Isaac Newton among the founders of modern science. It was the general Christian worldview that Newton (and those you mention) had that made the scientific enterprise make sense to them in a way that today's shallow materialism could not. If Newton did not have the religious conviction he did, he arguably would not have lifted a pen. Everything he did was an expression of one fundamental urge.
Reply to this Top
Ok, so we're all agreed. The age of earth is around 4.5 billion years old and not "less than 10,000 years".
Reply to this Top
Science and religion cannot coexist because science seeks to explain the natural world, whereas religion seeks to explain the supernatural world. They cannot overlap because science can only study things that are disprovable (and the supernatural world is impossible to prove or disprove).
Mixing religion and evolution is doing it just for the sake of it. It doesn't add anything. It's neither provable nor disprovable.
Reply to this Top
Are Christianity and science in conflict? If you believe evolution to be true, as every intelligent person does, then you have an idea about human origins. Evolution clearly demonstrates that there was no "Adan and Eve" or "Garden of Eden" scenario. Therefore, there was no 'original sin'. If there is no original sin, then why do we need the Jesus? Take heart knowing that science shows that we have not been born guilty, as theologians tell us.
Reply to this Top
You can take things even further. If science can't measure something, then it doesn't exist, right? So no one is born guilty because there's nothing to be guilty about. There is no good or evil, right or wrong.
If the universe is as scientists say it is, then what scope remains for statements about right or wrong, good or bad? What are we to say about evil and great wickedness? Whatever statements we might make are obviously not about gluons, muons, or curved space and time.
But if moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad.
Reply to this Top
So you're only a good person because your God tells you to be?
Reply to this Top
That's not what I wrote.
It's important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There's no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children.
All of the above misunderstandings of the argument are based on confusing God's existence with belief in God's existence. The argument is not that belief in God's existence is necessary for the objective morality of moral values and duties. Nor is the argument that God is necessary for our knowledge of moral values and duties.
If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature.
Top
The idea that only science can produce any truth about the world is a philosophical view called scientism. How does one demonstrate that scientism is true? (Hint: can't use the scientific method..., you need something outside science)
Reply to this Top
Described by the Endocrine Society as one of the most accomplished scientists of our time, Francis Collins is also a Christian, a Christian by choice and a Christian who takes his religious belief seriously. Of course its possible to conceive of a person who is able to balance a lifestyle of both science and theology. However, this is not proof that science and theology are compatible. Do you know exactly what Francis Collins believes? Does he believe the entirety of the Bible, or does he pick and choose passages to fit his own sense of morality and scientific view of the world? Does he take the creation story as fact or metaphor? Does he believe that his God meddles in the affairs of the natural world? Taking all of this into consideration, does his portfolio of beliefs even qualify him as a Christian? Self-profession alone is not grounds for qualification. All of this aside, the issue is not whether it is possible for the human brain to entertain two modes of thought, but whether claims of the natural world provided by both schools of thought are in agreement. Of course, in many cases, the tenets of the religion are open to interpretation and we are back to analyzing the portfolio of beliefs. But in some cases, as in a comparison between the theory of evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation story, they are in direct opposition. This is the problem.
Reply to this Top
And to qualify as a Christian, one has to take a literal interpretation of the creation story?
Reply to this Top
For some sects of Christianity, yes. But that wasnt my point, and I dont want to get into a religious debate here. My point was that saying there are Christians who believe in evolution is, in no way, evidence that Christianity and the theory of evolution are compatible. It is entirely possible that the subject is inconsistent in his/her beliefs.
Top
This is an excellent article. We need more and more such articles, because I believe a lot of people don't hear anything except religionists denying evolution and evolutionists denying religion. Some of the best writing on this topic is Francis Collins' The Language of God. I am thrilled with the way he (and his mentor, C.S. Lewis) explain a science and evolution encompassing biblical theology.
Reply to this Top
I recommend reading "The Clergy Letter Project" (easy to find on Google). This online letter has been signed by thousands of ministers and other church leaders. It has been officially endorsed by several denominations. The Clergy Letter supports scientific validity of Evolution. Most importantly, the letter condemns "Scientific" Creationism, on theological grounds, as "an act of hubris".
Reply to this Top
I'm Catholic and was raised to believe the Old Testament was a series of lessons to live your life by, not literal truth. I believe the Vatican holds the same position. No one out there (should) be trying to prove Creation happened in so many days because it's impossible to prove.
Reply to this Top
I don't know about you, but I don't want my children learning from such wholesome lessons as stoning adulterers and people who play football. I also don't want my sons thinking that it's okay to rape women as long as they marry them afterward.
Reply to this Top
I'd rather they believe whatever they want. Decide morality for themselves, since obviously God doesn't know what's right. Or at least he used a bunch of knucklehead writers who weren't able to get the ideas across; stoning "people who play football"--what a silly god, eh?
Top
Those who say that religion and science cannot coexist because science is based on testable evidence and religion is based on faith, have missed the point. The fact that religion is based on faith, and not testable principles, does not make it incompatible with scientific findings. Take a basic Philosophy class. On the other hand, amassing scientific evidence for evolution or a very old Earth and universe, does not discount the beliefs of the religious, unless those beliefs are particular "literal" interpretations of scripture that conflict. Finally, to suggest that there is evidence to "discover" about religious doctrine that may shed light on the scientific principles of evolution, etc. is equally as dubious. One could conclude, quite happily, that evolution, chemistry, etc. are God's mechanisms put to work on Earth.
Reply to this Top
Religion is based on faith, but it doesn't end there. There are scientific implications if a man was dead and then came back to life. To claim that we are ruled by a god who doesn't like it when we eat pork is to make a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore it is a scientific claim. What is the point of religion if it is not to be taken literally? Why does anyone go to church if god is not literal, heaven is not literal, sin is not literal, and forgiveness is not literal?
Reply to this Top
"To claim that we are ruled by a god who doesn't like it when we eat pork is to make a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore it is a scientific claim."
Sounds like you're saying that any claim whatsoever is a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore a scientific claim. If not, can you give an example of a non-scientific claim?
I mean, a claim like, "it is wrong to murder the innocent" would, in your view, be a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore a scientific claim?
Top
Scientific inquiry is the process of understanding and describing our reality through observation and interpretation of evidence from the natural world. Science is not some isolated black box we consult when we dont understand something; it is merely a word we use to describe our most fundamental interaction with the natural world. You use the scientific method at every instant of your life, whether it is tying a shoe or sending a text. Through observation and interpretation of past experiences leading up to this moment, you have a general understanding of how the world works, and you expect it to respond proportionally. To say, then, that ones past experiences have led to an interpretation of the nature of reality such that humans should not eat pork can be considered, for a lack of a better term, a scientific claim.
So, in my opinion, I would say that a scientific claim is any claim that seeks to explain some aspect of the natural world, including the supposed behaviors of the mammalian inhabitants homo sapien of planet earth.
Top
Chris, while your description of science seems down-to-earth and commonsensical, I think it is too broad and many scientists wouldn't agree. You should try that definition out with one of your science professors and see what she thinks.
Top
C Hernandez - It may seem odd at first to extrapolate the meaning of the word science in this manner, but I think it holds true. Science is commonly relegated to this realm of test tubes and lab reports, while the big picture is frequently overlooked. The overarching goal of science is to come to an understanding of how we, as humans, perceive the nature of our reality. To say that a certain type of reaction will occur when combining chemical A with chemical B is really to say so much more. First, it confirms our agreement with the frameworks we have established for analyzing the natural world (e.g. mathematics, chemistry, experimentation, etc.). And second, it says that within these frameworks, we are all observing the same occurrence in the natural world. Therefore, we can comfortably say that within the framework in which we have developed for understanding the natural world, my reality is consistent with your reality. This is the ultimate goal - to agree on the reality that we are experiencing.
Top
Interesting, religion and Christianity seem to be synonymous in this article. Has anyone attempted to investigate what those of the Islamic faith believe about creation? I do commend the author for her apparent confession of faith in Jesus Christ. I know you understand that intense persecution from non-believers will follow. I would like to suggest that anyone using biblical passages in your comment actually read the Bible. Please, do not simply mimmic paraphrased passages from atheist talking points that you exegete out of context. Why continue this endless debate? There are simply believers and non-believers. The argument for evolution is simply the fulfillment of prophecy proclaimed in 2 Peter 3. You have your religion, and I have mine. The difference is that my tax dollars are used to support your evolutionary theology. There is something so wrong with that, but I have no worries. Anyway, I pray that you are all enjoy a blessed Thanksgiving day. Thanksgiving, of course, is a Christian holiday, but I am sure that will create another argument. By the way, you non-believers, no celebrating Christmas this year. Just kidding, we are all one in Christ Jesus. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
Reply to this Top
"There are simply believers and non-believers... You have your religion, and I have mine."
As in "you believe your fantasy, and I'll be believe mine"? Brt, sounds like you're treating religion like ice cream: you might prefer strawberry, while I prefer vanilla. If it's all about personal taste and autobiography, how can any rational discussion continue?
On the other hand, if religious beliefs are about something real, and since they make contradictory claims, they can't all be right; in other words, some are wrong, and perhaps they all are wrong. But to dismiss things as "you choose your flavor and I'll choose mine" is relativizing the whole issue, describing something as subjective which is actually objective.
I think it makes sense to discuss in a reasoned way and bring to bear our most careful thinking. So the "debate" will go on.
Reply to this Top