 |
Does Science Conflict With the Bible?
Supplemental Reading | |
John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Back To Genesis
No. 107b, November 1997
| |
How often have you tried to witness to someone only to be rebuffed by aninappropriate view of science as having disproved the Bible? "Evolution istrue, the earth is billions of years old. Science has proved it. Thus theBible can't be taken at face value. How could all those scientists bewrong?"
We must all ask this question, for if science has disproved Genesis, we haveno confidence that John 3:16 is correct. "If I have told you 'earthlythings,' and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenlythings?" (John 3:12).
Indeed, there are some Biblical teachings and doctrines which seem toconflict with majority scientific thought. For instance: Genesis 1:1 vs. the Big Bang; the order of creation vs. the order of evolutionary appearance;the Biblical curse on all creation vs. the evolutionary development ofcomplexity; young Earth vs. old Earth; Adam's sin brought death vs.extinction brought man; the global flood vs. evolutionary uniformitarianism;etc. In each of these cases, the Biblical teaching can be supported butindividual scientific observations are hard to accommodate.
We must keep in mind, however, the difference between scientificobservations and opinions of scientists, especially in historical arenas.Both evolution and creation rely on "unobserved" events—non-repeatablesingularities. Both are views of history outside the realm of observationalscience. Through careful study, scientists may discern how the human liverworks, but this knowledge is far different from knowing how the liveroriginated.
To make matters worse, scientists often operate from a strictly naturalisticperspective, excluding supernatural creation from the range ofpossibilities. Surely Christians must not follow this perspective.
We must also remember that majority scientific opinion changes. Forinstance, the standard Big Bang fizzles more and more with each newdiscovery. Now is not the time to cite weight of scientific opinion as thereason to distort or disbelieve Scripture.
On the other hand, Scripture doesn't change. Our understanding of it may beenhanced by scientific discoveries, but by definition, it speaks truthwithout error.
How should a Christian respond? As ICR's physics department chairman Dr.Larry Vardiman writes in a recent paper, "When a conflict becomes evidentbetween an apparent interpretation of the Bible and an apparent finding ofscience, it is not necessary to force a final determination to be madeimmediately without further investigation. It is possible that amisinterpretation of either or both of the statements of Scripture or theevidence from science have occurred. Since of the two, Scripture speaks withgreater clarity, until a satisfactory resolution can be made about theconflict, I will proceed with confidence in my interpretation of Scripture.Resolution may not occur in my lifetime."
This is a wonderful time to be a Bible-believing Christian/creationist. Thescientific evidence, rightly interpreted, overwhelmingly supports thestraight-forward reading of Scripture. Even in those areas of seemingconflict, research continually sheds new light, increasing our confidence inScripture.
I call on my Christian "semi-creationist" brothers, those who hold to theBig Bang, or the old Earth or theistic evolution, to join the ranks of thosewho are trying to solve the remaining conflicts from a God-honoring,Bible-upholding perspective. For in the end, Scripture will stand. Rightlyobserved and interpreted there can be no conflict between science andScripture. |
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
November 1997
Copyright © 1997 All Rights Reserved |
 |
