FOR YOUR INSPIRATION
- Category: The Opinion Piece
By J.B. Lovemore-Reed
Welcome to The Opinion Piece. This is where we encourage the exploration of ideas. An opinion is a belief , a view, an outlook. The opinions expressed in these articals are not neccessariy the opinions of Kingfisher FM or their staff. Enjoy the reads, chew on the ideas and be stretched in your viewpoints. Stick tight with God.
Why are Christians so Afraid of Science? By J. B. Lovemore-Reed
I would like to start this article by making it clear that I am completely and totally in love with Jesus Christ. There was a time when I hated “his father”, but he hunted me down, as only he knows how to do. And he saved my life (spiritually, as well as literally) more than once. He is everything to me and without him I am nothing.
I would also like to make it clear that I respect science and scientists. And yet I seem to be in the minority in most mainstream churches. Snide comments and sarcastic remarks are commonplace in churches when referring to scientists. This amazes me. No-one would consider making these types of jabs at doctors (as a group), or at architects or at gardeners, for example.
The only thing that could account for this type of “Christian” behavior is fear. People are most aggressive towards the things they fear the most.
But why should Christians be so fearful?
Unfortunately many people still believe that God and Science exist at opposite ends of the spectrum, and are thus “enemies”. They feel forced to choose between the two, and therefore choose God. This belief is completely erroneous. God created Science, just like he created Music, Architecture, Medicine, Art, Gardening etc. through the minds of men. And more than that, he created the magnificence that scientists study.
There also seems to exist a strange belief, amongst many Christians, that most scientists sit around plotting how to disprove God, or how to spread their atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1997 a survey was done, and surprisingly the results showed that 40% of scientists still believed in God. In 2015, the results of a global survey carried out by Rice University in the US were made known, and the results were extremely surprising. 9000 respondents were surveyed (and interviewed) from France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the UK and the USA. 65% of Scientists in the USA still believe in God, 60% in the UK, 49% in France (94% in Turkey and others also high). The fact that a few famous names in science have made it their mission to disprove God does not mean that they are representative of all scientists. It is like saying that because a couple of famous artists were found to be paedophiles, then most artists must be paedophiles. Let’s try to remain within the realm of common sense here.
The fact of the matter is that most scientists are only interested in what is before them, and the question of God does not come into it. They are interested in science for the sake of science, like doctors are interested in medicine for the sake of medicine (and perhaps a bit of money too). And that is fine! When a doctor is doing brain surgery, chances are he is thinking about the brain he is operating on. And that is fine too! In fact, we prefer it that way.
It it not necessary for a doctor to be a Christian to be a good doctor. God gives gifts to believers as well as unbelievers. “He … sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5: 45) When we step onto a plane, do we head straight to the cockpit to find out who is flying the plane? Do we refuse to take the flight if the pilot is not Christian? A scientist can be a good scientist whether he believes in God or not. And a Christian can be a bad scientist even if he is a great Christian.
Augustine (354 – 430 AD), one of the great fathers of the Western Church, had this to say about the Earth being round: “But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible.”
The great works of Augustine do not become illegitimate due to a bit of “bad” science (and to be fair, he lived a really long time ago). He was a great theologian and philosopher and many consider him as one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation, because of his teachings on salvation and Grace. But being a man of God does not necessarily mean that you are spot on with your science, like being a Christian does not make you good at math or a good cook (I am a strong example of this).
The church has made some massive scientific mistakes in the past (the treatment of Galileo Galilei being one of them). Why do we think we are infallible now?
Yes scientists make mistakes, but so do doctors, and other professionals. It does not mean that the scientist’s mistake came from a yearning to spread atheism.
On the other hand, there are scientists who believe that they have found the answers to everything, and this is also blatantly false. They begin to march down a path outside of their field of expertise (usually inspired by the ego) and this is where things become messy. This is similar to the doctor who begins to think of himself as infallible, loses his humility and acquires a god-complex. We are human beings and our biggest mistakes tend to happen when the ego takes control. Neither Christians nor scientists are innocent of this.
The explosion of science during the 16th and 17th centuries was driven by those who believed in God. They expected there to be scientific laws behind everything because there was a “Law Giver”. Some of the most famous believers were Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton.
Isaac Newton said, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Newton certainly did not find ‘God in the gaps’. He found God in the magical things he discovered. Those that keep shoving God into the gaps in Science, have made him terribly small, and shrinking with each new discovery.
In more recent years, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin and even Max Planck (best known for quantum theory) all believed in God. Albert Einstein, the most highly respected scientist of the 20th Century, never came to believe in a personal God, but believed in God nevertheless. In relation to the Uncertainty Principle, he famously said, “God does not play dice.” He strongly denied atheism. Another famous quote is: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Most concerning about the present enmity between Christians and science, are the consequences that tend to be felt by “innocent” bystanders.
There is an entire generation of young people caught in ‘No Mans Land’. And the church is making it more difficult, not easier, for them to embrace Jesus. People keep talking about “losing our children” when they reach university going age. But there seems to be an unwritten church law, universally understood, that says: “Choose! Jesus or science?” It is a terrible position to put these young people in, and completely unwarranted. God has never asked us to make this choice, so why do we think it appropriate to ask this of our youth. C.S. Lewis believed that all fields of knowledge provide different avenues for discovering different truths about God’s creation.
As our young people begin to discover a new world of research, we should be encouraging them to look at things in new ways and to embrace the wonders of history, math, science, philosophy, geology, archeology, art, etc. instead of constantly looking for subtle ways to convey the message, “Watch out! Many dangers lurk in the halls of higher education.” This is a typical fear response. Why would Jesus give us these incredibly inquisitive and complex brains, if He did not mean for us to use them to dig and sift, inquire and explore? How wonderful! How magical! How generous He is!
This fear (especially of scientific exploration) amongst Christians is also depriving us, the church, of the deeper levels of awe we would be experiencing, in the face of God, if we knew more about the universe. This universe, where our tiny planet is situated, is so mind-blowingly vast and radically extreme, that even learning a little about the science behind it, is enough to render us speechless for all eternity.
The fact that our Sun, which is massive compared to the Earth (1 400 000 km wide) is only a medium sized star and that Arcturus is over 16 000 times larger than our Sun, boggles the mind. But then when we discover that the star Alpha Scorpii A is 690 million times larger than our Sun, our brains just stop working. This is so huge that there is no way to comprehend it. And we have not even begun talking about the size of galaxies (such as “the milky way”) yet, or the fact that there are billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each.
Pick up a handful of beach sand and try to count the grains. This alone seems impossible, doesn’t it? Imagine trying to count the grains on one beach. Now imagine that each and every grain of sand in your hand represents a star the size of our sun or bigger. It has been estimated that there are more stars in the universe (each of that massive size) than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Try and get your head around that number!
We tend to not realize how much we put God in a box. Just thinking about him with a human brain is already boxing him. God is so far outside the box that the box doesn’t even exist. And yet he humbles himself (under what could be considered a massive insult, if he were not God) to speak to us daily on our miniscule level. Why would he do such a thing? Because of his massive love for us. And this is when we realize that despite our miniscule tiny-ness, we are of vital importance to him. In fact, despite our seemingly insignificant location in a corner of the universe, we discover that we may be the central reason for the universe after all. He is so completely invested in us.
But let us not insult him further by thinking for one second that because he speaks to us on our level, that he is anywhere close to our level. He is so far beyond us in size, in scale, in power, in understanding, and also in compassion and humility and love, that it difficult to perceive.
It is easy to put God in a box if we do not at least endeavour to taste a little of the wonder of his creation. It is vitally important to experience and appreciate the beauty of nature. Even watching nature documentaries causes us to appreciate the unbelievable creativity, artistry and sense of humour of God. Just a glimpse at the extravagant behaviors and hairdos of certain birds in the Amazon, has us laughing for days. Looking at the scale and wonder of the universe begins to give believers a glimpse into who it is we are dealing with. It is equally mind-blowing to have a peek into the complexity of the atomic and quantum world. All these fields of science give us an insight into the majesty of God. These sciences remind us of the vast difference between Him and us, and thus the enormity of His decision to become one of us. The fact that a God of such power and immensity would care about us, is beyond humbling. At the same time, however, we are made bold, knowing that we are so precious to such a vast God. The creator of the universe, becoming vulnerable and coming to Earth is something difficult to understand. Let alone the fact that he would have himself tortured to death by us and for us.
So what are we afraid of?
Some feel that looking too closely at science, might cause one’s love for Jesus to rush out the window. Surely then, your love for Him was not very strong in the first place? Personally, the more I delve into science, the more I fall in love with Him, the creator of this realm.
Some feel that God will somehow be diminished by science and we need to protect him from that. We do not, however, need to protect the Almighty. He is truly large enough to look after Himself. In fact, acting fearful of science diminishes God. “For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear” (Romans 8: 15). Choosing ignorance over knowledge diminishes God.
John Lennox: “It’s over when we start to seem like we are afraid of the truth”
It is difficult for some, but important, to allow ourselves to break away from a boxed way of thinking when exploring God and science. The edges are where the supernatural exists.
It is already proven, in quantum physics, that certain atoms can exist in two places at once (one tiny example of the wonderfully crazy quantum world). To our boxed little brains, this goes beyond comprehension. We want to say “But that is impossible!” But we now know that it is not.
We accept that God is one, but also three. Three in one. We accept that Jesus rose from the dead. No, he was not a vision or a ghost, because he ate with his disciples and encouraged them to touch him, but he moved through walls and doors without opening them! “Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands…” (John 20: 26-27)
Flesh moving through walls? Seemingly impossible, but not impossible for God. Yes, an atom can be in two places at the same time, and flesh can move through walls. Everything is not as it seems. How wonderful! Let us be more open to the possibilities that only God can create.
Some feel that because the Bible is The Word of God (and I believe that it is) it means that it has to be read completely literally without any consideration for the times in which it was written. The problem with this belief is that Jesus himself was not a literalist. He was not happy with the literal way the Pharisees looked at scripture. Also, most of his teaching was done using parables and metaphors. He taught mostly in Aramaic, an abstract and poetic language. Why would he do this? Why did he not choose to be more direct?
When he says ……“If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out” he does not mean for all our fourteen years olds to take a knife to their eyes for watching porn. Most of the male world would be blind by eighteen. What he does mean is that we should be extreme and radical when dealing with those things that harm us and harm others. We should not make excuses for our behavior or tip-toe around it. Our actions should be dramatic (gouging out the cell phone screen might be a good idea).
Why does Jesus also choose to make radical statements that freak us out! “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14: 26). Perhaps he is provoking us NOT to take His words literally, but to look for the message behind them? It seems to me that he is challenging us to interpret his words. Here again, we all know that he does not mean this literally. But he is emphasizing the fact that when we follow him, it should to be with everything we have and every part of ourselves, and that nothing should be more important to us.
If you are sitting there saying “Well, our church believes the bible literally”, then I would ask, “Do all of your women cover their heads during church services?” If not, then it means that your church leadership made a judgment call (or an interpretation of the Bible) based on historical relevance. If they were willing to do this, then they will be willing to look at other issues historically. As Timothy Keller says, “No-one is truly a biblical literalist”. Interpretation and historical context are important. This does not in any way diminish the power of the Bible. In fact, the abstractions and metaphors leave space for the Holy Spirit to work in deeper and deeper levels as the centuries progress. The Word of God may have been written by men who were inspired by God, but God knew exactly what he was doing and the result is nothing short of miraculous, on every single level. This is truly a super-natural book.
What happens if we take this argument a step further?
If Jesus, the Christ, the Holy One, was prone to using metaphors and parables while teaching on Earth, why would it be completely outside the realm of possibility that He might use parables and metaphors when describing the creation of the universe and the formation of the Earth to Moses? How else would one be able to describe these scientific events to a man who lived between 1391 and 1271 BC. Talking about singularities, the speed of light, atoms, expansion etc. would not be possible. The people of that time believed the world was flat, if they thought about it at all.
And if you are not sure that Jesus was around back then, “In the beginning was the Word (capital “W”), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He (“He” not “it”) was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” (John 1: 1– 5)
I have no problem with others believing in Genesis literally. Many of my best friends believe in the literal creation account, and have shown me nothing but the love of Jesus. What I do feel is a problem, however, is the dogged attitude by large numbers of Christians that there is only one interpretation of Genesis and that is a literal one. I am treated like a philistine by certain Christians when they discover my “alternative” interpretation. Luckily, my relationship with Jesus no longer depends on the attitudes of men (like it did when I was younger) and I can take it. But this attitude has calamitous consequences for many of those who are just meeting Jesus for the first time. The anti-science stance of many main-stream churches is literally pushing people (especially the deep thinkers) away from Jesus, by the thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands. This is a tragedy of vast proportions.
I believe completely in Genesis, just a different interpretation of it. The true miracle is that the parable matches up exactly with scientific fact. It is too long and complex to go into it now, suffice to say that I am truly amazed that more Christians are not as excited as I am about The Big Bang.
Before the Big Bang was discovered, scientists believed that the universe had always existed and would always exist. It was a constant. This theory could easily dispose of God. Why would a God be necessary if the universe had always existed? In the 1960’s science rather unhappily came to the conclusion that there was a beginning to the universe. This caused a tremendous amount of angst. What was there before this? How could something come from nothing? Something else, beyond science, was needed to start everything.
Of course this converges perfectly with the biblical “In the beginning”. Most people do not realize what a radical scientific statement this is.
Unfortunately, a number of Christians stubbornly continue to call certain phenomena “pseudo-scientific theory” (rolling their eyes) when huge amounts of research have gone into these scientific theories.
Funnily enough, most don’t have problems with their children being taught about atoms and electrons (even though they have not seen these things personally) but if the same scientists then teach them about the age of the universe, they start spitting out words such as, “but we have never seen it!”
As mentioned, the fact that the universe has a beginning, and therefore has an age, was a reluctant discovery by science.
This tells us that science was unbiased and objective when discovering it. It was not something that the scientists wanted to discover. This discovery caused problems for many other related theories.
The age of the universe is not some random figure sucked out of someone’s thumb. It was arrived at by totally separate and unrelated fields of science. Each field of science came to the same age by completely different methods.
1) The Doppler Shift in Starlight:
Even if you have only a rudimentary understanding of the principles or characteristics of light, you will be able to understand how this calculation works. In 1927, George Lemaitre proposed an expanding model of the universe. Edwin Hubble, the astronomer after whom the Hubble telescope was named, formulated Hubble’s Law in 1929, based on actual observations of deep space. He found a red shift in the light (spectra) taken from distant galaxies. He found that all objects observed in deep space have a red shift, which means that they are moving away from the Earth, in every direction (see the colours of different wavelengths of light). This led to the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe. Space is actually expanding. “He alone stretches out the heavens,” (Job 9:8)
The implications were enormous and rocked the science world. This meant that, if the universe is expanding, then one could track its expansion backwards to “where” and when it all started, exploding out from one single point of origin.
This meant, that there was a beginning to the universe, that the universe had not always been here, and that one could measure the age of the universe.
The theoretical starting point, the “Initial singularity”, would be a point of infinitely high density (containing all the mass and space-time of the universe) scrunched up into a “space” of infinitely small dimensions. Of course, talking about “space” does not even make sense here, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity. It is impossible to get one’s mind around this. It is equally impossible to look back and “see” the singularity, since time and space did not exist inside the singularity, so there would be no way to transmit any radiation from it, before the Big Bang.
Scientists do not like singularities as they are points where all the Laws of math, physics and science break down. This realm is way outside their field of expertise (or anyone’s field of expertise). There is a need for something else at this point, something outside of scientific law…. something super-natural.
Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot and dense state.
2) Microwave Cosmic Background Radiation:
In 1964 Penzias and Wilson were trying to detect radio wave echoes on super-sensitive antenna and made a chance discovery, a low, steady mysterious noise (in the microwave region) that was spread evenly over the sky both day and night. After testing, it was found that this noise did not come from our Earth, the Sun or even our galaxy. Long story short, another team got involved, and it was discovered (1965) that the noise was in fact radiation left over from the Big Bang.
Since then, the evidence has been strengthened and confirmed. The space probes launched in 2001 and 2009 produced data that confirms the Hubble Constant and the Age of The Universe (independent of galaxy distances).
3) The Age of Stars:
Since it is logical to assume that the universe has to be at least as old as the oldest things in it, scientists work on dating the oldest stars. Stars cool as they age, so they study the cooling of the oldest white dwarfs. Long story short, the oldest white dwarf star, found in 2012, is 12 billion years old.
4) The speed of light:
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, which is 300 000 km per second (that is approximately seven times around the Earth in a second). Travelling at that speed, light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach us. When looking at our closest star (other than the Sun) we again appreciate the vast scale of the universe. The closest star to us, Proxima Centauri, is 4.24 light years away. If you decided to fly there in the rocket that went to the moon, it would take 43 000 years to get there. That’s the CLOSEST star. In terms of the speed of light, looking at this star now in the sky, we are seeing it as it looked four years ago. The rest of the stars that we see in the night sky are seen as they were decades, centuries and thousands of years ago.
The advantage of looking back in time when looking at the universe is that when we peer into deep space, we are looking into the distant past. Light from the distant galaxies takes billions of years to reach us, so that when we study distant galaxies we can actually watch stars still being born. “Deep Field” images obtained from the Hubble Space telescope today, are used to plot the history of the universe and confirm its age.
The conclusions by these (and many other) methods of measuring, are that the universe actually had a beginning (at a point that has been named The Big Bang) approximately 13.77 billion years ago. This is incredibly good news to me. It coincides with the biblical representation of the beginning, and supports the need for a super-natural Being to start it all.
The scientific age of the universe also seems to reflect the “character” of God a lot more accurately than the “literal” version of events. So many of the things he has created seem to come from a place of over-dose or extravagance in the extreme. Why the hugeness of things, why the vastness, why the enormous numbers? Take for example the lowly mushroom. A single mushroom can release 2.7 billion spores in one day! Is that really necessary? There are 250 million sperm cells released during sex. A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation. It only takes one sperm and one egg to create a baby. Why the over-kill? Why the “waste”?
When we look at just a few of these numbers (we haven’t even mentioned the quantum world, DNA and the complexity of the brain yet), combined with the ridiculous ratio of the size of our tiny earth compared to the vastness of space (think back again to the grains of sands as stars), we truly realize that God’s ways are not our ways.
“’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.” (Isaiah 55: 8)
He does not seem to be concerned with largeness or smallness, or our concept of “waste”, or time or space. Why would he be? He is beyond all these things and he created them all. It therefore seems completely within his nature, that this God of extremes would be extravagant in the way he created the universe. Why would he use a miniscule 6000 years, if he could use 13.77 billion years to build up to his most precious creation, the human being. He certainly did not need to rush creation into seven, 24 hour, days. This is a God known for his fondness of large, crazy, radical numbers. And of course, being outside of time, “a thousand years in your eyes are as a day that passes” (Psalms 90: 4).
Just for interest, here is a short list of some well-respected intellectuals (who also happen to be Christians) who have no problem with an old universe, and certainly do not feel that there is any reason to be fearful about biblical contradictions:
C. S. Lewis, John Lennox, Hugh Ross, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Jack Collins, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias and many more.
God never seems in a hurry or under time stress in the Bible. He did not seem in a hurry when He waited till Abraham was 100 years old to give him the promise of a child. He certainly was not worried about the “time wasted” while leading Moses and the Israelites round and round in circles in the desert for 40 years. It has since been shown that they could have crossed the dessert in 40 days, instead of 40 years. Of course we know that God used the time to teach the Israelites, until the old “slave” mentality had been trained out of them (or perhaps until the old mentality had died off in the older generation), and the time was sorely needed, but nevertheless God clearly was not in a hurry. (Makes one look seriously at the course God might set us on if we choose to remain stubborn or rebellious!). There are many other instances in the bible of lengthy “training” periods, times for learning faith, times for learning patience etc, and the importance of “timing”.
God’s timing is everything. More than once, during Jesus’ teaching years, we see God intervening in a super-natural way to save Jesus from a premature death. “At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.” (John 7: 30)
“Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come” (John 8: 20)
“All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him (Jesus) out of town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way” (Luke 4: 29 – 30)
Let us not forget that things can be true in two ways at once. When Einstein came along, he did not disprove Newton, but took Newton’s knowledge deeper. Both are right in different ways. The New Testament did not disprove the Old Testament. The Old Testament was vital as the platform on which the New Testament would rest. The New Testament (Jesus Christ) fulfills the Old Testament, and takes it to a whole new level. If someone asks: Where does the rain come from? You can answer, ‘The Water Cycle’ or you say, ‘From God’, and both answers are right. As C.S. Lewis explains, “Things can have a natural explanation and a super-natural, divine meaning at the same time.”
Christians do not realize how easily they accept this in daily life. If someone has to have a kidney transplant (and has an unusual blood group) and the exactly perfect donor kidney arrives, people have no problem saying, “God healed her”, or “someone died who was a kidney donor, and the match was perfect!” Both explanations are right. And it is not any less of a miracle because God used the medical system to do it.
Interestingly, many Christians are not able to look at the Bible the same way, and see that two things can be right at the same time. A passage of scripture can be both a beautiful parable and also contain deeper meanings, that become revealed over time (and through the Holy Spirit). Both the parable and the deeper meaning are right.
In my opinion, there are many signs placed in Genesis to show us that the creation account (including the creation of man) is a symbolic story, not a literal one. Here are just a few:
It says that on the seventh day God rested. He is God. He is not human. He created Time and Space and Matter. And is thus beyond all of these. He certainly does not possess human frailties like “being tired”, and therefore does not need to rest. These words have to be symbolic.
He creates day and night, before He creates the Sun and stars, the Sun being the very thing that determines day and night. Obviously something else is happening symbolically here (there are very clear scientific explanations for the way this is written, that I cannot go into now).
In the garden, the snake was told (by God) that he would crawl on his belly for the rest of time (he was already crawling on his belly) and eat dust. Snakes do not eat dust. They never have. They eat insects and frogs and mammals. They eat meat. Obviously this was a symbolic statement.
In the garden was a tree “of the knowledge of good and evil”. How can one look at this as anything but symbolic? There are apple trees and lemon trees and pear trees and avo trees, but how would this tree look?
The list goes on and on and on. I could write an entire essay on this alone.
None of the comments above are meant to belittle Genesis. It is a brilliant, amazing, stunning parable. It coincides perfectly with science, if you take the time to study it (another essay in itself). And if you prefer to believe it literally, then that’s fine too. But be very careful of chasing others away from Jesus, because of your determination that only your interpretation is correct. There are many very different types of thinkers in the world, and God created all of these various brains.
At the time of Moses, people thought that stars were lights in the sky that circled the earth (which was at the center of the universe). Now we know that most of these “little lights” are millions of times larger than the Earth. As we dig deeper and deeper, and as our scientific knowledge of phenomena expands, so does our view of God.
Scientific theory should be studied by those who are interested, and studied deeply. If things are found that conflict with our faith, then these must be studied too. We are then able to discuss and question these issues with others from a place of knowledge, not ignorance. We do not become better Christians by burying our heads in the sand. Our brothers in science are also searching for the truth. They just happen to be using a different language. God wrote both books, the Bible and Science.
C.S. Lewis and John Lennox agree that the fact that the universe is describable in mathematics shows an Intelligence behind it.
John Lennox: “Science and religion are not at war. People want to make it seem that they are and that there must be a victor … it’s a fake war.”
Gerald Schroeder Phd : “The antagonism between Bible readers and scientists is unnecessary. There is unity between Genesis and Science.”
In 2007 Professor Antony Flew published a book entitled: “There is a God: How the World’s most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind”. After a lifetime as a rationalist philosopher and staunch atheist, Flew concluded (after months of soul-searching) that the research into DNA had “shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved”.
Christians should not live in trepidation of the next scientific discovery. I certainly don’t. I await each discovery with wonder and excitement, knowing that in the very end, all scientific discovery will lead to God.
The Bible: NIV (1986) Notes by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford
Mere Christianity: C.S. Lewis
The Four Loves: C.S. Lewis
The Confessions of St. Augustine: Intro by E.M. Blaiklock
Genesis and the Big Bang: Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder Ph.D.
The Reason for God: Timothy Keller
A Prodigal God: Timothy Keller
What’s so Amazing about Grace: Philip Yancey
The Laws of Destiny: M.B. Lovemore
Velvet Elvis: Rob Bell
Various discourses, debates and papers: John Lennox
Various discourses, debates and papers: Dr. Hugh Ross
Various discourses: Timothy Keller
Various discourses: Antony Flew
Various discourses: Ravi Zacharias
Various discourses: Michael L. Peterson
The Creator on the Cross: Dr. Mike L. Anderson (Faith and Science Seminar 2017, Common Ground Church)
We can trace the Age of Life through the DNA Code: Prof. Rawlings, Dept. Microbiology (Faith and Science Seminar 2017, Common Ground Church)