Science and Faith

It's Not A Debate

Michael A. Rios

• Editorial: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781662409325
• Categoría: Biological Sciences
• Categoría: Evolution

Why have so many books and discussions on science and faith framed their arguments as science versus faith? By what authority was it decided that one side is completely right and the other wrong? In Science and Faith: It's Not a Debate, Michael Rios addresses the need to understand what's happening on each side, the fears, history, methodology, compatibility, and limitations. Without a true understanding of the nature of both sides, diatribes and debates are pointless! Science and Faith: It's Not a Debate explores the development of scientific thought and examines the biblical interpretations put forth by Christians to provide the readers with an appropriate context of each side.

The traditional "main event" whenever science and faith are discussed, evolution and creation is described with respect to accepted scientific theory and hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation. How can anyone assume to make an informed decision without understanding the scientific and biblical explanations of our origins and how each discipline works? Is reconciliation possible? If both sides are devoted to knowing the truth, there is hope for a convergence of knowledge and understanding. Science and Faith: It's Not a Debate explains how society has been influenced by philosophical intolerance and misinformation and the dangerous effect it can have on our future generations.

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION

The Evolution of My Thinking

Years ago, I started thinking about writing this book to address the misconceptions about science and faith that I observed coming from students, parents, and colleagues. At the start of each school year, I’d dutifully review the “scientific method,” ubiquitously addressed in the first chapter of all science textbooks, and assign my students to write a brief essay on “What is Science?” For the most part, I got the regurgitated answers I had prepared them to repeat, but in one case, I got a response I wasn’t expecting. One very devout Christian student simply wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.” This prompted me to ask him to clarify the difference between the scientific truth and that found in Scripture. I was hoping he would recall what I had discussed about the method; however, he stuck to his original definition and couldn’t or wouldn’t separate the two disciplines. That’s when I realized I needed to go beyond the typical textbook treatment of defining science because it was incomplete. I needed to do for my students that which I had done for myself a few years earlier with the Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee (CFCC) and the PBS Evolution Project to clarify “the nature of science.” My students needed to know more than just the method; they needed to know the boundaries and limitations of science too. Unlike scripture, scientific ideas can change and even be rejected based on new evidence. Science studies the laws of nature and is supposed to be neutral regarding God, the supernatural, and morality. The limitations of science are best demonstrated in the CONPTT lesson I described earlier. Any phenomenon that doesn’t satisfy the CONPTT criteria can’t be considered scientific. Yes, science does search for the truth about nature in its own systematic way, but it doesn’t seek to reveal all truths.

To me, the practices of science and faith always seemed so different that I couldn’t imagine a conflict between them. Each practice, it seemed to me, had its own value and proper place in society, and that’s how I approached them growing up. It wasn’t until college that the conflict between science and faith hit home for me. I knew I loved science because I loved Star Trek, and, having been brought up as a Roman Catholic, I knew for a fact that God is real and that He could help me when my studies required some outside intervention. Did I have to choose between them? No! The disparity between the scientific and scriptural narratives of creation didn’t bother me at the time because I could easily accept scripture as metaphor. Six days of creation could easily represent six million or six billion years. No problem. God knew the precise timing. What about human evolution? God knows the details not mentioned in the Scripture, and besides, He can do anything, right? God probably used evolution as the mechanism of biological change, and then He gave a soul to a Homo sapiens man He named Adam and then later one to his companion, Eve. My thinking on the subject remained quite accommodating, but during my junior year of college while living in the dorms, I joined a Bible study group and reexamined my faith. I eventually accepted the new teachings and became a born-again Christian while retaining a sentimental bond to Catholicism. I was learning about salvation through Jesus Christ and not concerned with scientific conflicts with the book of Genesis. I was a happy camper.

The conflict between science and faith wasn’t an issue to me until I started teaching high school biology. Over several years, the debate issues became clearer as my perspective broadened with a better understanding of the nature of science and God’s Word. Scripture wasn’t purely literal or allegorical, and science was extremely compelling but could change direction on a dime. The presentations I witnessed were always so one-sided and frustrating. As the conflict heated up to the point where the courts got involved, I could see how the creationist weren’t talking about science at all despite their academic credentials. Why didn’t they get it? They were out of their element! It’s fine to believe in creation. Just don’t call it science!

Ultimately, the fear element on both sides became obvious. The creation extremists feared the spread of humanistic, secular philosophy over society and Christianity would be erased, and the atheistic extreme segment of the scientific community feared the influence irrational faith believers would have our government and laws. I believe the vast majority of Christians, scientists, and that sliver of the population at the intersection were either too busy with their lives to act, didn’t care, or remained closeted so as not to jeopardize their reputation or tenure. For a long time, I didn’t act either. Then the battle became impossible to ignore. My colleagues started backing off from teaching evolution either because of their faith or to avoid controversy in the classroom. The public demanded equal time for alternatives theories to evolution (i.e., intelligent design) in the curriculum. The integrity of science education was going to be forever compromised, and I needed to act. That’s when I got involved in the movement for standards-based education. It’s something that should have been done a long time ago. Most folks just assumed that when it came to instruction, we were all on the same page. Not so. Standards worked to the degree that for the first time, California education policy required teachers to teach a list of specific content standards in their subject. The classroom curriculum was no longer dictated by a textbook publisher or limited to the teacher’s favorite topics which allowed them to also eliminate topics they wanted to avoid. As far as science goes, the curriculum in biology, chemistry, and physics would be the same in all of California’s public schools, allowing colleges to really know what student applicants had been taught. Imagine that!

I wanted to write this book to address the crisis in science education, my world, and the larger crisis I saw being debated in society, science versus religion. It’s not a debate! It’s not us versus them. Science and faith, my preferred phrase to science and religion, are truly not at odds with one another, but you must understand how each works. They both have great value to us individually and globally, so let’s strive to understand and respect that. This book was written for all who fear the other side in the so-called conflict between science and faith. It is intended to be an encouraging message based on understanding, not arrogance or fear.

Where do I fit in?

After so much hair-splitting analysis, you’re probably more than ready to ask me, “Where do you fit in?” Well, it’s obvious that I find merit and truth on both sides because I’ve invested a good part of my life to understand them. Too often we only hear from one side or observe both sides trying to debunk the other in a “cage match” style debate. That doesn’t really encourage growth and understanding, does it? From my science training, I understand that evidence and theories must be viewed with healthy skepticism. That is the nature of science. No matter how compelling the evidence may seem, scientific theories are tentative, not the final word or absolute truth! In science, we can never be sure we know the complete story. We may know the broad strokes, but no matter how much we learn or benefit from discoveries, the absolute truth is always beyond our reach. On the other hand, as a born-again Christian, I believe that the Word of God is absolute and true. So which is it? Does science know enough to debunk the Genesis narrative, or does scripture invalidate scientific theory? The keys to moving forward with a seemingly unresolvable conflict between science and faith are understanding and balance. One needs to understand how both sides work and how to balance dogmatic truth and inductive, evidence-based reasoning with an appropriate perspective. Fortunately, the tools we need to do this are already available. We have the thoughts and insights from century’s old historical writings, commentaries, biographies, and letters from both theologians and scientists to help us understand. By comparing their discoveries and beliefs, I’ve clarified my own thoughts, beliefs, and perspective on science and faith.

First, I don’t agree completely with any single faith-based group described herein, but perhaps you do. I don’t consider myself simply a YEC or an OEC. If scripture contains the absolute truth, then the literal timeline of creation, six twenty-four-hour days is much shorter than what science asserts. That should make me a YEC, but I don’t fit here because most YECs reject evolution while I accept it as the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth. Similarly, I accept the evidence and theories that account for the age of the earth, some 4.5 billion years, as factual and compelling. Don’t put me in with the OECs either because their belief in an ancient earth age rests on an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis narrative that conforms to scientific theory. The practice of loosely interpreting scripture to accommodate the latest scientific explanation really worries me. I don’t want to bend the truth of scripture, even if I don’t fully understand it, to avoid looking foolish in the eyes of some. In addition, some OECs also reject evolution outright based solely on their interpretation of scripture and not physical evidence. That doesn’t work for me scientifically or scripturally. To debunk any scientific theory, you need physical evidence, not scriptural conjecture. The OEC’s view also fails to work for me scripturally. According to their interpretation of scripture, death didn’t exist before the fall of Adam and Eve. This interpretation would be true for Adam and Eve had they not been expelled from the garden, but it shouldn’t be inferred that physical death for all other life in or outside of the garden didn’t exist because the Bible never addresses this subject.

As compelled as I am to support the findings of science, I do so with an appropriate skepticism based on the understanding that scientific theories can and do change whereas the Word of God is true and unchangeable. I guess that makes me a YOEC who supports evolution theory. But you say, “You can’t have it both ways!” “You can’t accept the literal Word of God and the findings of science!” And I say, “Why not?” This is where an educated perspective is so important. For Christians, where there is a perceived conflict between science and faith, faith will always win! To them, the absolute truth of God’s Word compared to a good theory, no matter how well thought out and evidence-based, will always win out. We may have a long way to go to close the truth and knowledge gap between scripture and science, but we must hold on to our sacred beliefs. We must also recognize that science has made it possible to discover so much about our biology, our world, and the universe that it would be wrong to carelessly throw out what has been learned simply because it doesn’t fit with what we believe. Science and faith demand a more enlightened approach to resolving their perceived conflicts. Although God’s Word will always remain supreme to Christians and science will need to catch up to understand its truth, the progress of science will bring us closer to agreement. At that point, if we ever reach it, we may well discover that there never really was a conflict, just a lack of information.

Of all the faith-based groups, I agree the most with the TEs, theistic evolutionists; however, I don’t agree completely. The obvious disagreement I have with the TEs is their allegorical interpretation of Genesis. An allegorical interpretation of the creation timeline gives them the flexibility to define a single day as a non-twenty-four-hour day. The often cited verses, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish,...