1 Introduction
As I sit in my chair in front of my computer, I ask myself, “What am I doing?” While I am a Christian, I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. While I greatly enjoy reading about science as a hobby, I am neither a physicist nor a biologist. And yet, here I am, believing, in my vanity, that I can hopefully impart a bit of wisdom in those areas. As the title suggests, the goal of this essay is to discuss simply the coexistence of science and Christianity. The goal is not to try and decide what The Truth is. I’ll go ahead and save you the suspense – I don’t have all the answers.
So who should read this, and why? When I first seriously began thinking about what I would write, I jumped to the conclusion that my target audience would be anyone and everyone, but as I began formulating what I wanted to say, I found that most of my efforts would be directed toward other Christians. Taken literally, some parts of the Bible, mostly in the book of Genesis, are incompatible with current theories of cosmology, geology, biology, and probably several other “ologies.” Because of these seemingly irreconcilable differences, many conservative Christians turn their backs on those sciences by either decrying them as nonsense or bastardizing them beyond all recognition. This leads us to the imperative question, “Who cares?” Don’t people have the right to believe what they want? Whether or not they have the right to do so, holding certain beliefs can have negative consequences. What if someone believed that it was alright to casually walk up to a random person and punch them in the nose? While some may find the notion entertaining, and perhaps even quite therapeutic after a tough day at work, one could easily see how the negative consequences of such an action could quickly out-weight the benefits. Flat-out rejecting what science tells us is detrimental to both science and Christianity.
First, such thought processes are detrimental to science because it undermines not just a few scientific theories, but the very core of science itself. Keep in mind that science is not, as some may mistakenly believe, a collection of facts or the search for truth. It is a method. Put simply, we gain knowledge about how the universe works by making observations. The method should be applied dispassionately and consistently. If well-tested theories exist that we refuse to believe, then the implication is that the scientific method is invalid. If the method is invalid, then how can we trust anything derived from its application? How can we perform any science at all? Additionally, one could make the argument that not trusting science could also be interpreted as not trusting God. Both of these points will be discussed more in depth a little later.
As stated above, the rejection of many well-tested scientific theories also has a negative impact on Christianity as a whole. There is a divide in our schools about what to teach our children, and there are those who profess knowledge that all of cosmology is a worthless fraud. Regardless of whether or not this belief is true, it gives the impression that Christians are dogmatic and uneducated, especially since those who yell the loudest get the most visibility. There are those who would respond that they do not care how they are perceived, and there are times when that attitude is appropriate. But this is not one of those times. We do not live in a bubble separate from everyone else. Christians must remember that they are supposed to be promoting the spread of Christianity – not to teach about the origins of the universe or the development of animals, but in order that others may be saved. Some may read into this discussion an implication that one should compromise their faith and beliefs in order to appear more appealing to the masses, so I will state explicitly that that is not the idea I am promoting. If one wishes, for example, to believe that the universe and Earth are only several thousand years old, that is quite alright, but it must be done so correctly.
The rest of this essay will attempt to propose a way to view the simultaneous presence of science and Christianity that is neither threatening to faith nor a corruption of science. Deciding whether or not it is the right way must be left as an exercise for the reader. I am keenly aware that this subject is a sensitive one, so right now I ask only for a little patience and a willingness to read. If you do not agree with what is written, I urge you to not to quit. Remember that one day you may be discussing faith with a nonbeliever, and ideas similar to these may be introduced. If that were to happen, you have a responsibility to your faith to attempt an honest answer, so you should start formulating a response now. We have all heard to keep your friends close but your enemies closer, and while that adage is a bit extreme for this case – I do not think of those who disagree with me as enemies – it does hold a certain appropriateness in that if one is to defend their beliefs, as it is a Christian’s responsibility to do, then that person must be well versed in arguments both for and against their beliefs.
2 No Pop Quizzes
If two peoples are not coexisting peacefully because of differing beliefs, and they wish to coexist peacefully, then there must be some compromise in the beliefs. However, for many Christians, compromise is not an option. To them, not only are opposing beliefs wrong, but the very act of having incorrect beliefs is offensive. So, for compromise to occur, attitudes must change in at least one of two ways. The first option is for people to allow their beliefs to change. Failing that, there is a second option of at least respecting opposing beliefs. The reason that making these changes can be so difficult is because some see altering their beliefs as compromising their faith. This is the first, and most crucial, wall that must be torn down.
I think that one of the most important things to accept in the study of anything, including religion, is that it is alright not to have all the answers. What do certain Bible passages mean? What really happened historically? There is not always a way to know these answers with one hundred percent accuracy. Not everything in the Bible is as plain as it looks. In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, St. Augustine writes in the early 5th century that, “in the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense.” Examples of both symbolism and multiple meanings can be found in the Bible, and a quintessential illustration is in Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” The obvious interpretation of this passage, especially in the context of the next few verses, speaks of Israel being called out of Egypt after their years of servitude. The symbolism of Israel as God’s child is given weight by Exodus 4:22, in which God is instructing Moses to speak to Pharaoh. He says, “This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son…” However, in Matthew 2:15, the passage from Hosea is reinterpreted to refer to Jesus. For safety, Joseph had been sent to Egypt with Mary and Jesus until Herod’s death, “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” If one person were to read Hosea before Matthew, that person would believe that the son was Israel, for there is nothing in that statement alone to point toward the interpretation that the son is really the messiah. However, if a second person were to read Matthew first, then the son is obviously Jesus, and there would be no clue that the son is representative of the nation of Israel. Should the first person look down on the second because the second’s beliefs are different from the first, or vice versa? It is possible for two people to hold differing yet simultaneously correct interpretations of the scripture.
When we look at symbolism, the most prominent example comes directly from Jesus. One of his main methods of teaching was through parables, which were sometimes symbolic to the point that listeners were not able to perceive the stories’ meanings. If one is a new Christian who has accepted Christ yet is still immature in the faith, is it not reasonable that a first reading of the Bible will not impart all of the intended meaning? If that were not so, then there would be no need for those who devote their life to the study of the Bible; everyone would be experts after a cursory reading. More importantly, does the fact that someone may not have deciphered a passage affect their salvation if they have already accepted Christ?
Some believe that if one really wants to know what a Bible passage means, then God will reveal it. While I believe there is truth in this statement (“He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” Mark 4:9), it is not quite that simple. There are a multitude of Christian churches and denominations. The reason such an array exists is because of differences in belief and interpretation. It is obvious that some of these churches have opposing views; if they did not, then they would not be different denominations. So if we are to believe both that merely wanting to know the truth allows us to know it and that there is a set of churches with opposing views, then the implication is that at most one church in that set really wants to know the truth. I, however, do not think that is the case. I think that those churches really do want to know, and yet they hold different beliefs, so there must be something else going on. What that “something else” is, I cannot say for sure. So now we may have two different churches, both of which sincerely wish to know the truth, that have differing interpretations. Which one is correct? Is there a way to know for sure? And what if, like the immature Christian, one or both of the churches got the interpretation wrong? Would that affect their salvation? Remember those prizes from Cracker Jacks boxes that were little pictures that showed different images depending on your viewing angle? Two people may see two different images, and both are valid; you cannot describe what is shown without including your point of view. Perhaps God wishes to provide something that has relevant meaning for everyone since not everyone will be looking from the same vantage point.
The Bible is not a text book to be studied as if for a test. There will be no pop quizzes when we die. (Tester: “Bad news… you did pretty well overall, but this verse here… well… you thought it was a metaphor, and it should have been taken literally. You were so close, but thanks for playing, though!”) Instead, it is a guide to show us the nature of God, salvation, and how to live well. Throughout the New Testament, we are told that we are saved through grace, not by acts or knowledge. Therefore, we need not fear being wrong when we interpret the Bible (as long as the attempt is sincere). The direct result of this is that if someone else has a (perhaps radically) different view from our own, we can seriously consider it and perhaps use it to replace, or maybe incorporate into, our existing view without regard to the fallacy that doing so compromises our faith in any way. The level of our faith is not determined by which interpretations we believe. If one is truly uncomfortable with this freedom, then a second conclusion is that we can at least tolerate the other viewpoint without becoming condescending or judgmental. If the other person is a believer, then they must interpret at least in that context, and so their interpretation must not have weakened their faith. Believers look to the Bible for confirmation of their faith, not repudiation, so they obviously choose interpretations which bolster their faith as much as possible, and therefore all Christians’ interpretations should be in line at least with the core tenet of Christianity – that tenet that is “passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, [and] that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” [1 Cor 15:3-4]. On the other hand, if the other person is not a believer, then where is the cause for anger? Would you become angry at a child for being ignorant of adult matters? (This is not to imply that unbelievers are childish or immature, simply that there are times when one is not expected to know the truth, and therefore their statements should be taken lightly.) In such cases, one’s attitude should be one in which a future faith may grow. Is anyone ever in a rush to join those who are condescending to them?
3 Science: What is it, and Why Should I Care?There is a computer programmer named Jamie Zawinski who is well known among other programmers. He wrote a short article about how for several years he had wrist pain from typing on a keyboard so much and how he dealt with it. One of the methods he tried, with some success, was acupuncture, about which he made a very interesting observation. He writes, “It's easy for their terminology to scare you away, with talk of Qi flowing and being blocked and so on, since we know that's not really what's going on, but look at it this way: Newtonian mechanics isn't really what's going on either, but it's a model, and it works really well almost all the time.” (Newtonian mechanics is some of the first physics we learn in high school: force equals mass times acceleration, velocity equals distance over time, etc. It is basically just the equations that model the movements we deal with in every day life. Although they were superceded by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and shown to be only approximations, they still work perfectly well for almost all day-to-day uses.) He points out that Qi (also spelled “chi” and pronounced “chē”) is simply a model. More importantly, it can be a reliable model whether or not it is actually true. This idea is intricately related to science, which, as has been previously stated, is not a store of knowledge, but a method for building theories.
To refresh your memory of those grade school science projects, a simplified version of the scientific method is as follows: define the problem, form a hypothesis about the solution of the problem, perform experiments and gather data that should determine whether your hypothesis is correct, analyze the results, and form conclusions. Ideally, all experiments can be performed in controlled laboratory environments, but sometimes the scope is simply too large, and we must wait on nature to provide. For example, for a volcanologist to carry out an experiment with an actual, erupting volcano in the lab would be a bit tricky, plus the insurance premiums would be prohibitively costly! If a hypothesis is supported by the experiment, it becomes a theory. So, a theory is simply a hypothesis with the weight of some observed data behind it, and if subsequent data comes to light that contradicts the theory, said theory must be either altered to fit the new data or, if such alteration is not possible, thrown out.
Admittedly, this last statement is a bit of an oversimplification. Ideally, neither data nor its interpretation would be ambiguous. However, everything is prone to error, both human and technical. Consider the sun. We have a great wealth of evidence and observation that it rises every morning. However, if you were to wake up tomorrow morning and see that it was pitch black outside, would you immediately throw out your model? Would you assume that the sun, in fact, does not rise every day? The more reasonable conclusion would be that something else was going on. Maybe the clock is wrong, and it is still the middle of the night. Maybe someone covered your house in a giant tent. Maybe you are still asleep and simply dreaming. One could come up with a myriad of hypotheses about why it is dark out, but few of us would seriously entertain the notion that our model, which says that the sun rises every day, is broken; our model simply has the weight of too much data behind it for us to consider that it is wrong. That is why, in the real world, a well established theory is not immediately discarded because of a single contradictory observation.
So if observations can be erroneous, is there any reason to trust them at all? If one is a Christian, then there is a very good reason to trust the observations of the universe on which science is built: the belief that the universe was created by God. In Romans 1:20, Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” If we cannot trust observations about the physical universe, then we cannot use them as reliable sources of information about God’s qualities, but that is exactly what Paul is telling us to do. If we are to believe that we should look to the universe to see God’s qualities, then we must accept it as a reliable source of information. This is exactly what science also tells us. No matter how mundane or outlandish a scientific theory, the final say about whether or not it is a good, sound theory is whether or not it accurately reflects observations about the physical universe. So the faithful study of science is not simply a way to accrue trivial facts, but a way to delve into the works and qualities of God which were meant to be discovered by investigation.
One should never assume that theories are simply ideas that someone thought up and became accepted as truth simply because people thought that person was pretty smart at the time. Neither are they decrees handed down from on high by men in white lab coats. New ideas are treated very skeptically, and when those that are especially profound are introduced, decades may pass before a sufficient portion of the scientific community accepts them enough for them to be considered generally reliable. Sometimes competing theories must first be proven wrong; sometimes more evidence must be gathered to bolster the original theory. In the end, though, if a theory survives, it is because it has been supported not by wishful thinking or reputation, but by evidence from the world itself. This process is the same for all branches of science. If we are to trust tested theories at all, we must trust the method by which they are developed, and if we trust the method, we must trust all of its theories as models of how the universe works. We cannot simply pick and choose.
So, to put it simply, we care about science because it gives us theories, or models, about how stuff works, whether it is in economics, cosmology, psychology, or biology. Additionally, although no theory is ever considered to be proven one hundred percent correct, the lack of faith in the absolute correctness of theories does not stop them from being useful. As previously mentioned, Newtonian mechanics, strictly speaking, is false, but it is still extremely useful. This means that we need not equate utility with truth. Even if a model is thought to be an inaccurate representation of how the world
really is, if it nevertheless has utility within a certain context, it can safely be used when appropriate. However, before one may use a theory, what the theory says must be known. Therefore, it is wise for one to learn science faithfully regardless of one’s faith in the truth of science.
4 The Straight DopeProminent areas of contention between science and Christianity are cosmology and evolution. Cosmology states that the universe is somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old, with current consensus being around 13.7 billion years [Wikipedia entry for “Age of the universe”]. Evolutionary theory states that organisms change over time to become more adapted to their environment, and over billions of years this process has given rise to the abundance of different species, including humans, on the planet. These theories conflict with those who interpret Genesis to mean that God created the entire universe and life upon the Earth in the span of six literal twenty-four hour days several thousand years ago. This section is not here to debate which of these views is correct, what
really happened, but to describe the current models of these two areas which have been built by science.
I will again urge the reader to be patient if he or she does not believe in the truth of these theories. For most sciences, knowledge of underlying theories need not be a requisite to one’s life; one doesn’t have to know exactly how a microwave works in order to heat a meal. Although knowledge in general is beneficial, no one will have the inclination or time to study everything, so there will always be fields in which one is ignorant. However, because of the contention between cosmology and evolution, those fields are consistently discussed, or at least derided by, many Christians. If one is to discuss (or deride) some subject sensibly, one must have a basic knowledge of said subject. Therefore, it is a Christian’s responsibility to study areas of contention.
I will also reiterate that I am not an expert in these fields, although I do believe that I know more than the average layman – at least in the United States. Unfortunately, these subjects are sorely underrepresented in high school science classes, and so in order to gain any insight, one must actively seek out texts, which few are inclined to do. These next paragraphs will attempt to give a brief, but correct overview of cosmology and evolution according to current theories, although I may be underestimating the difficulty of this task. After all, entire books have been written on these subjects, and brief, watered-down layman summaries are actually the sources of many people’s inaccurate ideas about the fields. But in the end, my two choices are to either give it a try or give up, and I don’t much feel like giving up. So at the very least I can attempt to try and keep your eyes from glazing over as you read on.
4.1 CosmologyCurrent cosmology states that there was a beginning to our universe, some 13.7 billion years ago, in the big bang. Ironically, the idea that there was a beginning at all was originally very distressful to the scientific community. Originally, most scientists believed that the universe was static and infinite, but in 1929, Edwin Hubble (for whom the Hubble Space Telescope is named) observed that, generally, galaxies are getting farther apart. This led to the discovery that the universe is in fact expanding. This does not mean simply that galaxies are moving through space away from each other; instead, galaxies are moving relatively little through space, but the space between them is expanding. Matter is not simply spreading out; the universe itself is getting larger. So, if the universe is getting larger as we look forward in time, then it is becoming smaller as we look backward in time. The farther we go back, the smaller the universe, until it comes to a point. This point was the beginning. Again, this does not mean that the universe existed as vast empty space with all the matter in a very small point-like region. The universe itself was that small. This event is the starting point for the existence of all energy, space, and time (matter did not exist yet). One naturally begins to ask about what happened before the big bang, but the question really has no meaning. The big bang was when time itself started (for our universe, at least); there was no “before”. As a clarification, the big bang theory does not say anything about what happened at the moment of the beginning. When that first starting instance, where time equals zero, is reached, all of the equations we use to model the universe break down. Science does not tell us why the big bang occurred.
Just after the big bang, the early universe was pure energy. Lots of energy. Einstein’s theories of relativity show that matter and energy can switch back and forth between each other; that is, they are simply different forms of each other. We see the effects of matter transforming into energy all the time – it is what allows the sun to shine. Incidentally, it is also what allows nuclear weapons to explode with such force. In the early universe, the abundance of energy and high temperatures allowed the transition to move in the reverse direction. As the universe cooled, the energy was able to transform into matter – specifically protons, neutrons and electrons. Eventually, these clumped together to form hydrogen, helium, and lithium – the first three elements on the periodic table. From these humble beginnings, everything else formed.
As time went on, gravity pulled the primordial gases, composed mostly of hydrogen, into large clouds. As the clouds got larger and condensed further, pressure started building on the interior from the weight of all of the hydrogen. Eventually, the pressure increased to the point that the hydrogen atoms at the center were actually pressed and fused together into helium. Upon the initiation of fusion, the first stars were formed.
After there is no longer sufficient hydrogen in the star to sustain hydrogen-to-helium fusion, the process temporarily comes to a halt. With no fusion, there is no outward energy from the interior of the star to balance the gravity which is trying to pull the star inward, and so the star begins to collapse. This process again increases the internal pressure, and once it passes a certain threshold, the star may begin fusing hydrogen and helium into heavier elements. The newly instantiated fusion generates huge amounts of energy with nowhere to go but outward, and the star explodes, or goes nova, spreading much of its material throughout the space around it. With what is left of the star, the process may repeat multiple times, each time making successively heavier elements. Every atom in the universe heavier than lithium was formed inside the cosmic crucible of a star. (Strictly speaking, other heavier atoms have been formed artificially in the lab, but for the purposes of this essay we will speak only of naturally made atoms.)
Eventually, the universe was seeded with enough of the heavier elements created by the first generation of stars that Earth-like planets were able to form. Thankfully for us, they did just that. Gravity continues to do its work pulling together new hydrogen clouds, which can also attract the now-available heavier elements around it. Those heavier materials coalesce to form planets and, if certain conditions are met (i.e. the make-up of the planet, its distance from the central star, etc.), set the stage for life.
4.2 EvolutionThere is a common misconception that the theory of evolution defines a process. An organism exists, some new feature would benefit that organism, and so it has offspring with that feature. There’s some sort of “pull” that changes a species into something more complex – something somehow “better.” These ideas, however, are simplified metaphors that convey a sort of mysticism about the whole process. If this was all one ever heard about evolution, then it would indeed take much faith to put any merit in the theory.
Evolution is not so much a process as a result, and it is not confined to biological systems. For instance, it is possible to evolve a computer program, but to keep the scope of the discussion reasonable we will limit ourselves to biological evolution here. Evolution of a biological system arises from two factors: 1) imperfect reproduction of an organism and 2) environmental favoritism that increases the probability that one specific subset of a population will successfully reproduce.
Imagine an animal with a fur coat for warmth. Over time, this animal has spread over an entire continent. Now, it is quite common for variation to occur within an animal species. No offspring are exactly like the parent. Some are bigger, some are smaller. Some may be lighter while others are darker. Some may have a thicker coat while some have a thinner one. Now what if there were periodic cold snaps in the northern part of the continent and heat waves in the southern part. Is it not reasonable that the animals with thicker coats will have a greater chance at surviving the cold snaps in the north while those with thinner coats are more likely to survive the heat waves in the south? And is it also unreasonable to believe that, after successive applications of temperature extremes, the thick-coat variety will be more abundant in the north and the thin-coat variety will be more abundant in the south? We would then have two varieties, much like we have different varieties of dogs. Now, it is very easy to give purpose to this process in our minds, because it can appear to be intelligent – a species spreads to different climates, and then it changes to deal with the new circumstances. However, it is crucial that we do not take this point of view. According to evolution, there is no purpose. An animal cannot “decide” to grow more fur, and the environment cannot cause an animal to give birth to an offspring with a thinner coat. There was only the variation that naturally occurs in a population and an environment that killed those who were less fit and left those who were more fit. This is where we get the phrases “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.”
While the previous example is a very simple one, it does illustrate the basics of the underlying theory, which is a testament to the simplicity and elegance of the theory itself. One objection to this example is that is only shows microevolution, or evolution within the species, of which there are numerous examples in nature. (You know those stories about how bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics? That’s evolution.) While it is true that this example does not illustrate macroevolution, or evolution from one species into another, there is really no fundamental difference between the two. Macroevolution is simply a long series of microevolutionary changes; the only difference between the two is time and scale. A cat will never give birth to a dog, but a common ancestor of the two, through many, many, many intermediate steps, gave rise to both of them.
Opponents of evolution use several arguments against evolutionary theory, but most of them rise from a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, since evolution is not sufficiently taught in schools, most people’s ideas come from layman articles that water down the theory too much. While glossing over the details of a theory for a layman is usually necessary, the problem with doing so for evolution stems from a desire in many people not to believe it. If one reads an analogical description of an idea which is not controversial, then the person takes it for the analogy it is, but if the reader is an opponent of the idea, then the inadequate models presented in layman’s terms become straw man arguments that may easily be attacked. I am of course aware that this section itself includes a layman’s introduction to evolution. Honestly, I am not quite sure how to persuade you that this description is any better than the others; I can only say that the description seems to me to be a fair synopsis of what evolution actually says.
“There are no fossils showing transitional forms!” First, the fossil record can be admittedly sparse, and second, yes, we do have them. To name a few examples: we have many fossils showing a transition from apes to humans; a fossil was recently discovered (in 2006) that appears to be a cross between a fish and a crocodile; we have fossils of animals that appear to show land mammals becoming more aquatic and sharing traits with sea mammals such as whales. We may never have the full history, but holes are in fact being slowly filled in.
“If one piece of a biological system that contains many parts is missing, the whole system fails, so it couldn’t have slowly evolved! Everything had to be there at once!” The idea that all the parts have to be present at the same time is called “irreducible complexity,” but it need not be a hindrance. Sometimes parts can work only half finished. A primitive, lens-less eye that can only detect light and dark is better than no eye at all. Also, parts of a complex system do not necessarily first arise as part of the system; they may have other functions initially, and this allows building blocks to form that may be incorporated into a larger, more complex system later. For instance, a bee’s stinger was originally an ovipositor for laying eggs. Studies with simulated evolutionary systems in computer science (where computer programs were developed through evolutionary methods) have shown that seemingly irreducibly complex systems can in fact be evolved given sufficient rewards for intermediate steps.
“Then why aren’t we still evolving?” Evolution takes a long time. If it took millions of years to get from apes to humans, should we expect extra arms overnight because it might be helpful? It is very likely that at any snapshot in history, the species will look static. Also, humans have become a special case where physical fitness does not necessarily equate to survivability. Because of modern medicine, we keep alive those who would not have been able to reproduce before, not to mention the possibility that we may begin directly altering our genes in the not-to-distant future.
“If evolution is true, then that means that we all came from apes!” Yes. Yes, it does. But that is not an argument, it is an outburst based on pride, and in the end it has no relevance at all on the truth evolutionary theory.
“If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes?” Evolution does not state that everything has to evolve. Suppose an animal species gets split into two groups for some reason. Maybe one area can no longer support the entire population, and a small part of the population ends up being pushed to a separate, possibly different ecosystem. If the population in the new environment becomes isolated from the old population, then evolution may occur only in the smaller population. If the old population is well suited to their environment, there is no pressure for them to evolve; any change may actually make them less fit. However, the new population in the new environment may indeed change and eventually become a different variety of the species. If enough change occurs, they may become unable to breed with the old population at all, and at that point they have effectively become a different species altogether.
As a final note on evolutionary theory, it shares an attribute with big bang cosmology in that just as the big bang theory does not describe how the universe came into existence, evolutionary theory does not describe how life actually started. Evolution only models how existing systems that imperfectly reproduce themselves may become more adapted to their environments, and it requires an existing reproducing system to work. Therefore, it cannot shed light on how the reproducing system, in this case life itself, initially arose.
5 Door #1 or Door #2So what are our reasonable choices with respect to what a Christian should believe? There are currently three general categories of belief of which I am aware. The first is that the universe was created several thousand years ago with the Earth appearing roughly as we see it today. The second is that the Earth and universe are billions of years old and that Genesis is meant to be interpreted symbolically. The third is a hybridization of the two, where the universe is several thousand years old, and the evidence that we find of an old Earth is reinterpreted and squeezed into that abbreviated time frame. Only the first and second options are reasonable, though.
We will examine the third option first and discuss why it is unreasonable. Put simply, the pieces do not fit. Proponents of this viewpoint would argue that fossils are left over from animals that really lived, the Grand Canyon was carved from a river (or the flood from Genesis), and that dinosaurs may have indeed roamed the Earth. If one is to believe this viewpoint, then the implication is that some observations may be trusted and others cannot. Geological observations stating that now-extinct organisms once existed are believed, but other observations, which are equally valid from a scientific viewpoint, that state when those organisms lived are not. How, then do we decide what observations are trustworthy, since all observations come from the same place? Can we sincerely trust any observation of the natural world if we take this view?
Also, the evidence that some would try to squeeze into a few thousand years cannot reasonably be packed so tightly. Fossils of sea creatures exist within mountaintops; there is evidence that Africa and South America were once connected; we see light that should have been traveling billions of years through space to get to Earth now. If we wish to believe in science, then we must accept its consequences, and if we do so, then in a few thousand years, seas do not rise to mountainous heights, continents do not move an ocean apart, and light does not speed up, slow down, or hop, skip, and jump through space. Although arguments along these lines do exist, and are loudly professed by some, they rely on a twisting and selective acceptance of our knowledge. Because scientific terminology is used when these ideas are presented, laypersons can easily be fooled simply because they do not have the background with which to refute the false arguments. If this option actually happened, then our current understanding of most of science would be invalidated, but science itself is being used to back this view. So, if one trusts science, then this view is inaccurate. Conversely, if one does not trust science, then this view has no basis. Therefore, a young-Earth hybrid of science and Genesis should be an unreasonable viewpoint for anyone.
So we are left with the two reasonable options: either the universe is young or old, where “young” is several thousand years old, and “old” is several billion years old.
I have tried to show that belief in an old universe is not unreasonable with respect to Christianity. In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, St. Augustine argues that Genesis can be interpreted as a framework for creation as opposed to a literal, historical account of events. If one takes this point of view, then the incompatibilities between science and the Bible are greatly reduced, one can trust that what we see from the natural world is really the truth, and there is no reason to believe that the models that science builds differ greatly from what actually happened in the past.
Some people will not wish to abandon an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis, though. As previously stated, a literal interpretation is perfectly acceptable. However, if one is to hold this view, then one should hold it correctly. That is, one should not modify scientific models in order to do so. Furthermore, one need not reject scientific theory in order to do so. If we believe in an all-powerful God, then we must believe in a God who can create the universe in any way He pleases. It must therefore be possible that the universe was created roughly in the form it is today. The consequence of this belief, though, is that God created the universe in such a way as to appear to be old. If the world is young, then dinosaurs never existed, but we have fossils. The continents were created as they are today, but we have geological observations that state they were once one. Light was created between the Earth and distant galaxies at the precise place and moving in the exact direction as to reach Earth now and give the appearance of traveling for billions of year through space. This approach requires the belief that God created a young Earth that contained evidence for an old Earth.
So why does this view not invalidate science? While it invalidates scientific models as being what actually happened, it does not invalidate their usefulness. As long as the universe was created in a state reflected by scientific models, then the models can still teach us about the universe. As long as the models accurately predict what we currently see, they can then be used to predict what we will see. As long as a model is useful within a certain context, what it states outside of that context is not necessarily relevant. Therefore, if one believes in a young universe, that belief should not hinder the study of science that points to an old universe.
6 OK, So Now What?So what can we take away from this? That depends a great deal on the extent to which one agrees with the arguments presented here. If one reads this and thinks, “Rubbish!” … well, at least I tried. Hopefully, readers will at least be left with the realization that we need not bicker amongst ourselves. This, of course, should not imply that we should never debate our ideas; healthy debate is a prime method of spreading ideas and fighting stagnation, but there is a difference between healthy debate and simply arguing. To abstain from actively arguing, however, is not quite enough; to do so would mean that all the tensions are still present, and we simply ignore them as best we can. While there may be times when this is a necessity, it should only be used as a last resort since, if the tensions are still present, they still may fuel arguments. As an example, simply consider the current situation in our schools concerning whether or not evolution or the big bang should be taught.
A more optimal solution, in my opinion, is to consider that the Bible may be more encompassing and flexible than we originally thought. We have already seen examples of Biblical passages containing multiple valid interpretations, and so we should never be absolutely sure that any interpretation that we currently hold is the only correct one. St. Augustine himself advocated the use of knowledge of the physical world to continually update our understanding of Scripture. This one small concession – this admission that even Christians are not all-knowing, even with respect to the Bible – has the possibility to do so much at no real cost. It is possible to keep our faith and at the same time safely explore other ideas. We can look out and see a grander world. We can, in fact, have our cake and eat it, too. And I like that, because cake is good.
