Science

is sometimes used as an excuse to reject belief in God, but that excuse is due to a misunderstanding about Science.

American chemist Glenn T. Seaborg

Case in Point:

“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country.” Those words begin the oath taken by people who are in American Scouting. So, what happens when someone in Scouting believes that Science has eliminated God? Answer: The person leaves Scouting.

That actually happened several years ago. According to an article that I read, a teenage boy in Scouting decided that he could no longer be a Scout because he believed in evolution, and he concluded that evolution eliminated God.

I felt sorry for that boy because I knew that he had a gross misunderstanding of Modern Evolution Theory. No, the theory does NOT eliminate God. In fact, NOTHING in Science eliminates God.

So, I want to set the record straight for anyone who struggles with an acceptance of both God and Science. The two are NOT enemies.

The confusion about God and Science is due in part to how people interpret religious texts that were written thousands of years ago.

For example, what comes to your mind when you hear or read Genesis 1:1? 

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” 

What comes to mind when you hear or read Colossians 1:15-16? 

“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.”

Do you try to interpret those verses through the lens of Science? Do you try to interpret Science through the lens of those verses? What if it were wrong to do either?

In his book Living Our Beliefs: The United Methodist Way, United Methodist Church bishop Kenneth L. Carder gives guidelines for interpreting the Bible, and he writes the following: 

“Although it contains history, science, psychology and various types of literature, the Bible is principally a book of theology, the story of God. It is not meant to be a textbook of science or history.” 

So, YOUR way of interpreting the Bible might cause friction between God and Science, but the Bible itself does not necessarily do so.

“Wait!” You might say, “Doesn't Science cause friction between God and Science? Why was that ex-Scout wrong?”

To answer that question, I turn to biologist Dr. Mark Buchheim. In year 2005, during his tenure at the University of Tulsa, Dr. Buchheim wrote a letter to the university's student newspaper, and in his letter, he challenges the belief that the ex-Scout had. Dr. Buchheim writes, 

“Anyone who tries to link an acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism or agnosticism is promoting a false dichotomy.”

Sociologist Dr. Mark A. Foster has also weighed in on the topic of God and Science. I am going to quote something that he says in a blog post of his:

“Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other means. . . There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin. Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or the soul.”

In his statement, Dr. Foster mentions two kinds of Naturalism: Methodological and Ontological. 

If you have never heard of the two, then THAT is part of the problem. If you have heard of them but don't know the difference between them, then that is ALSO part of the problem.

It is important to know the difference because one kind of Naturalism is required by Science while the other is NOT required. Do you know which is which?

One person who does know is Keith Augustine, a philosopher who has used blogging to promote Atheism. In one of his blog posts, Mr. Augustine writes the following: 

“In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural.”

Biologist Dr. Kenneth R. Miller supports Mr. Augustine's claim. At the beginning of his book Finding Darwin's God, Dr. Miller writes, 

“My friends and colleagues in nonscientific disciplines will often claim science as their authority. Clearly they believe that scientific inquiry has ruled out the divine. Unfortunately for them, as I will argue, nothing of the sort is true.”

The late biologist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould was famous for defending Charles Darwin. In his book Rocks of Ages, Dr. Gould writes the following:

“Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. Rather, he argued that nature’s factuality, as read within the magisterium of science, could not resolve, or even specify, the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life, the proper foundations of morality, or any other question within the different magisterium of religion.”

Biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins promotes Modern Evolution Theory, and he also promotes Atheism. Yet, even he has stopped short of equating Modern Evolution Theory with Atheism. In his book Climbing Mount Improbable, Dr. Dawkins says the following about the evolutionary process: 

“Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random.” 

Yet he also says, “It is not necessary [emphasis his] that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not.”

In other words, while Science cannot prove that God works through evolutionary processes, Science cannot disprove it, either. Now, I am not trying to promote Theistic Evolution. I am just letting you know that those who believe in Theistic Evolution aren't necessarily wrong. It's just that scientists are unable to prove that any mutation was given supernatural direction.

The late nuclear physicist Dr. Ian G. Barbour also wrote about the relationship between God and Science. In his book When Science Meets Religion, Dr. Barbour writes the following: 

“Another way of separating theological from scientific assertions is the distinction between primary and secondary causality, which is common in Catholic and neo-orthodox thought. God as primary cause is said to work through the secondary causes of the natural world that science studies. God is omnipotent and uses natural laws to achieve particular goals. Primary causality is on a totally different level from the interactions among entities in the world.”

So, no, Science does NOT require anyone to reject the existence of God, and a belief in God does NOT require a rejection of any scientific theory or any scientific finding.

I want to close by citing something else that Bishop Carder says in his book, as he addresses the attack on theism made by atheists. Bishop Carder writes the following:

“Atheism has gained increased attention in the public media in recent years with books by such prominent and thoughtful intellectuals as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They rightly point out the terrible and destructive manifestations of religion in the modern world and present challenges that must be taken seriously by those of us whose worldview and behavior are grounded in faith in God. However, belief in God is not the substantive issue. It is the kind of God one believes in and trusts, and we must persistently and humbly evaluate our own understanding of God in the light of scripture, the historic creeds and the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit within the Christian community.”

So, whenever you think about God and Science, keep in mind that the two are NOT enemies. Show me someone who says that they are enemies, and I will show you someone who is reading into Science something that is NOT required by Science.

Quote Sources:

Augustine, K. (2009). Naturalism. Infidels. Retrieved from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/ .

Barbour, I.G. (2000). When science meets religion. New York: HarperCollins.

Buchheim, M.A. (2005). Letter to the editor: An educated response. The Collegian Online. Retrieved from http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=2569

Carder, K.L. (2009). Living our beliefs: The United Methodist way. Discipleship Resources.

Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. Viking.

Foster, M.A. (2001). The Captain’s Personal bLog. My Looking-Glass Selves. Retrieved from http://editorials.sociosphere.com/arc20020301.html

Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine.

Miller, K.R. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god. New York: HarperCollins.

Bible verses quoted from the New International Version Bible.