God and Science

Most scientists today agree that the universe had a beginning. This beginning suddenly replaced nothing with something. The first two verses of the Hebrew Bible read, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Was it God’s Spirit that set the world into motion or is the answer to this question purely scientific? Who is God? What is science? Are they enemies or comrades?  These questions have plagued humanity for centuries even though the answer is quite apparent. Science is a way through which to understand the created world, and through that knowledge understand the Creator. Science and religion are inseparable. God owns the world and uses science to rule it.

Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma, in their book Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design & Evolution, write on the relationship of science and religion, “We cannot separate our study of God’s Word from our study of God’s world because both come from and point us toward God” (Origins, 17). Everyone has a set of presuppositions which will affect their views of science, be that religion or any other belief system (Fennell).  Though Christians have unique presuppositions about how God brought the universe into existence, this does not always pose a problem for Christian and non-Christian scientists to work together. For Christians, the important thing is acknowledging “who” is the origin of the universe. Even still, it is beneficial for Christians to learn “how” through the Bible and through science (Origins, 25). With all the different presuppositions and beliefs between people even of the same worldview, it may seem like a miracle that non-Christian and Christian scientists can work together. Still, when scientists focus on the common aspects of their beliefs, they are able to work together to make scientific discoveries. There are five beliefs that scientists must agree on in order to do science well. These beliefs are:

1.     Humans have the ability to study nature and to understand, at least in part, how it functions.

2.     Events in the natural world work by natural cause and effect.

3.     Natural phenomena are repeatable; they are regular across space and time.

4.     Observations and experiments are necessary to build and test scientific models that correctly describe natural phenomena.

5.     Science is a worthwhile use of human time and resources (Origins, 34).

Because Christian and non-Christian scientists both can agree on these beliefs, they are able to do science well if they focus on these truths.

What is science and how do we use it? James Trefil and Robert M. Hazen define science in their bookThe Sciences: An Integrated Approach as, “a way of learning about our physical universe” (The Sciences, 26). Because the study of the physical world is very broad, there are specific names for the studies of different parts of it. Charles M. Wynn and Arthur W. Wiggins in their book The Five Biggest Ideas in Sciencedocument some of the different categories in which science is divided:

·     Astronomy deals essentially with the entirety of the universe.

·     Physics deals with everything from the world of subatomic particles to the functioning of stars and galaxies.

·     Chemistry deals with atoms and their interactions, but these are found all over the cosmos.

·     Geology, probably more than any of the other sciences, draws from the other disciplines, utilizing direct sensing as well as proving beyond the limits of the senses. 

·     Biology studies life wherever it is found, as it exists on this planet and as it possibly exists elsewhere (BIS, 12).

Wynn and Wiggins also discuss in their book a blueprint used by scientists for their discoveries called The Scientific Method. It is with this method, and others similar to it, that the different categories study the world. The first step in this method is making an observation. One makes an observation by, “[sensing] specific physical realities or events.” The second step is making a hypothesis, which is a “statement about the general nature of the phenomenon observed.” The third step is creating a prediction or a statement of “a future occurrence consistent with the hypothesis.” The final step is to experiment by creating “a test to see if predicted event occurs.” Depending on the results of the experiment you either find backing for your hypothesis or discover you need to brush up your hypothesis and start over again (BIS, 2-3).

Once you have gone through the scientific method, Trefil and Hazen suggest you use mathematics to share your results: “Scientists employ mathematics, which is a concise language that allows them to communicate their results in a compact form and often, as an added benefit, allows them to make very precise predictions about expected outcomes of experiments or observation” (The Sciences, 7-8). Though sometimes confusingly precise to the average reader, mathematics is the best way to share the exact results of an experiment.

Some hypothesis cannot be tested in the usual way. These hypotheses are named “black boxes” because they are, in a sense, like birthday presents which one cannot unwrap, though one can make guesses as to its contents. When making a hypothesis about what is in these black boxes, Occam’s Razor states that, “the accepted hypothesis should be the simplest hypothesis that explains any given phenomenon.” If a simple explanation is adequate to explain a circumstance, then it is the best explanation (BIS, 6-9).

Some questions, according to Trefil and Hazen, cannot be answered by science: “Some of these questions are deeply philosophical: What is the meaning of life? Why does the world hold so much suffering? Is there a God? Other important questions are more personal: What career should I choose? Whom should I marry? Should I have children? We cannot answer these questions by the cycle of observation, hypothesis, and testing.” In an attempt to answer questions like these, people have turned to what Trefil and Haven classify as pseudoscience: “creationism, extrasensory perception (ESP), unidentified flying objects (UFOs), astrology, crystal power, [and] reincarnation,” all of which cannot be tested with science. They argue that anything that “cannot be in a manner that yields reproducible results then it simply isn’t a part of science” (The Sciences, 14-15). However, this is an unfair representation of the case for God and creationism. Creationism is at the very least a black box of science and at best a theory. Without being able to observe the beginning of the world, scientists are left only with the natural world today to observe. From this observation, different scientists compile different hypothesis, including creationism. Most Christians believe that the amount of complexity in the natural world gives the God hypothesis enough evidence to make it at least a theory. However, this has been a constant debate and will probably remain so until Christ’s return, when the matter is altogether settled.

In summary, science is a way through which mankind learns about the natural world. God uses the natural world to teach humans things about His character, so scientific study is very beneficial. Despite the differing beliefs religious and secular scientists have, they can still work together if they focus on the common aspects of their worldviews. To understand the many aspects of science, scientists use the scientific method and communicate what they have learned through mathematics. At this point in our scientific progress, however, there are some things that cannot be tested. These hypotheses remain in black boxes. Other more philosophical questions cannot be answered with science. Pseudoscience is not the answer to these conundrums. However, creationism and arguments for the existence of God should not be considered a pseudoscience, but rather a scientific black box” hypothesis. Eventually there will be no question as to the existence of God. In time, Christ will return and not only declare the natural world his, but also restore it to glory:

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.  For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.  For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.  And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.  For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” (Romans 18:25)

Works Cited

Fennell, Barbara D. "Changing The Universe." Class. Pfiefer Building, Room 226, Point

Lookout. 31 Aug. 2012. Lecture.

Haarsma, Deborah B., and Loren D. Haarsma. Origins: A Reformed Look At Creation, Design,

and Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2007. Print.

Trefil, James S. "Science A Way of Knowing." The Sciences: An Integrated Approach. 4th ed.

Chichester: Wiley, 2003. Print.

Wynn, Charles M., and Arthur W. Wiggins. "The Road to Discovery." The Five Biggest Ideas In

Science. New York: Wiley, 1997. Print.