Sometimes, despite our best theological and scientific study, religion and science still seem to be in conflict. 
Posting about the interactions between religion and science from In All Things - an online hub committed to the claim that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has implications for the entire world.
http://inallthings.org/a-reformed-approach-to-the-interactions-of-science-and-religio

Jelsma, Tony N.

English

Dordt College

Digital Collections @ DordtFaculty Work: Comprehensive List6-25-2015Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Scienceand ReligionTony N. JelsmaDordt College, tony.jelsma@dordt.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_workPart of the Biology Commons, and the Christianity CommonsThis Blog Post is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Work:Comprehensive List by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact ingrid.mulder@dordt.edu.Recommended CitationJelsma, Tony N., "Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Science and Religion" (2015). Faculty Work: Comprehensive List. Paper277.http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/277Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Science and ReligionAbstract"Sometimes, despite our best theological and scientific study, religion and science still seem to be in conflict."Posting about the interactions between religion and science from In All Things - an online hub committed tothe claim that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has implications for the entire world.http://inallthings.org/a-reformed-approach-to-the-interactions-of-science-and-religionKeywordsIn All Things, religion and science, God, human beings, animalsDisciplinesBiology | ChristianityCommentsIn All Things is a publication of the Andreas Center for Reformed Scholarship and Service at Dordt College.This blog post is available at Digital Collections @ Dordt: http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/277A Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Scienceand Religioninallthings.org /a-reformed-approach-to-the-interactions-of-science-and-religion/Tony JelsmaThis is post #2 of 2 in the series “Religion and Science - A Reformed Perspective”1. Models of the Interaction of Science and Religion2. A Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Science and ReligionA series exploring the interactions between religion and science.The previous article described four models of the interaction of science and religion:Conflict: religion and science are mutually incompatibleIndependence: religion and science talk about different things so they don’t interactDialogue: religion and science are mostly separate but there are areas where they come in contact,from different perspectivesIntegration: religion and science are closely and inextricably intertwinedIn this article I will critique them from a Reformed perspective.ConflictI feel that the conflict model should not be readily embraced by Reformed Christians. Since the same Godis revealing his works both through the scientific study of the creation and through his Word, they shouldnot conflict. However, since both science (the practice of studying the creation) and religion (the practice ofliving out one’s faith life according to God’s Word) are human activities, they are susceptible tomisinterpretation. True, because creation speaks without words, Scripture speaks more clearly, butScripture, too, can be misinterpreted. I agree that God’s Word is infallible, but when one takes a particularinterpretation without acknowledging that it is just that – an interpretation – we can run into difficulty.Moreover, interpretations can easily read current science into Scripture, which ignores the original contextin which the text was written and forces Scripture to say what it never intended to say. Third, to deny thevalidity of science while at the same time reaping the benefits of that same science in one’s daily life (e.g.dismissing radioactive dating while using the same science in medical treatments, or using a GPS unit,which relies on the same science used to measure the distance to stars) seems somewhat disingenuous.God’s works are revealed both in the creation and in Scripture, and we must acknowledge them both.IndependenceAs was mentioned in the previous article, the independence position seems naïve. True, the focus ofgeneral revelation is different from special revelation, but both speak of reality. Our religious beliefs cannotbe simply personal in that they don’t affect anyone else, because they speak about real persons and realevents, such as the resurrection of Christ.Another weakness of this position, pointed out by Barbour, is that science isn’t as objective as it is oftenportrayed. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn showed how science workswithin paradigms, or understandings of the world (examples of such paradigms include phlogiston theoryand Newtonian physics). Such paradigms may not be correct but serve as frameworks for scientific study.Scientists continue to work within a paradigm until it becomes untenable and is replaced by a betterparadigm.Conversely, the study of religion is not as subjective as often portrayed. The Christian faith is based uponGod’s revelation in the Bible. While there are clearly differences in interpretation, the Bible provides astandard for evaluation and guidance in one’s Christian faith and life.DialogueThe dialogue position seems intuitively attractive. Science and religion largely address different questionsand serve different purposes. But since they both address reality, they occasionally speak to the samething.One particularly challenging example of dialogue is the nature of being human. How are humans differentfrom animals? Clearly there are quantitative differences in intelligence and communication ability, to namejust two. But do humans have aspects that are completely lacking in animals?From a theological perspective we have a discontinuity between humans and animals – humans arecreated in the image of God and animals aren’t. We have a covenant relationship with God that includesnorms for behavior. Animals act on instinct and are not held responsible for their behavior. But does beingmade in the image of God include features possessed by humans that are lacking in animals? Is this ascientific or a theological question?Whether or not there are qualitative differences between humans and animals is relevant to thecreation/evolution debate. If humans gradually evolved from an apelike ancestor, when and how wouldthese qualitative differences have arisen? Does an evolutionary/animal origin of humans preclude such adiscontinuity between humans and animals? This question has both scientific and theologicalimplications.1IntegrationFrom a Reformational perspective, one would think that the integration position would be the mostattractive. After all, we proclaim with Abraham Kuyper that there is no aspect of our human existence overwhich Christ does not claim authority. Thus, our scientific activities are also considered religious. However,while every scientific activity is done Coram Deo, before the face of God, and is an act of worship, scientificactivities are done differently than religious activities. They use different approaches, in differentcommunities. How can they be truly integrated? We need to be intentional and explicit on how it occurs.The integration position allows for religion and science to mutually inform each other. Some people may beuncomfortable with such a statement. It is true that the Bible (or rather our faith, which is based on theBible) shapes how we see the world, but does science shape how we read the Bible as well? In otherwords, does science shape our faith?I would say that it does, on several levels. Nearly all Christians would agree that we need generalrevelation in order to understand what special revelation is saying; the Bible is translated into a languagewe understand; it refers to things and concepts that we know by general revelation. Moreover,understanding the context of a Scripture passage helps us to see better the nuances of a text. Theimagery that is used in the Bible, e.g. the references to us as sheep, requires an understanding of thecreation (or more precisely, the authors’ understanding of the creation) for maximum impact. And on adifferent level, seeing the beauty and intricacy of creation, e.g. the interconnectedness and robustness ofsignaling pathways in a cell, helps us see God’s power and wisdom more clearly.But, while these uses of general revelation to understand special revelation are probably not toocontroversial, I suspect that many — including me – are uncomfortable when ‘science’ threatens to changeour interpretation of Scripture. Sometimes, despite our best theological and scientific study, religion andscience still seem to be in conflict. In the final installment of this series I will give examples of suchapparent conflicts and how Reformed Christians might deal with them.Footnotes1. Interestingly, the Reformed philosopher Jacob Klapwijk in his book Purpose in the Living World?Creation and Emergent Evolution accepts an evolutionary origin of humans but also argues thathumans have aspects that are not possessed by animals. These include religious, aesthetic, andeconomic senses. To account for this discontinuity, Klapwijk argues that these aspects emergedduring the evolutionary process. However, the nature of that emergence is not clear. Emergencecertainly occurs in embryonic development; an embryo cannot think or have an aesthetic sense. Butsuch an emergence is teleological. The embryo has the instructions to ensure that these facultieswill emerge in development. Does a similar teleology occur in evolutionary development? ↩

Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Science and Religion

https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&amp;context=faculty_work

Reformed Approach to the Interactions of Science and Religion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Dordt College