The New York Times ran a series of articles on creationism using a question that could lead people to think that one must choose between faith and science. The Times asked, “Why are some people drawn to origin narratives like in Genesis, and others to the scientific story?” A question like this is only necessary if one accepts a false comparison between what faith and science are meant to contribute.
The narrative of Genesis offers an historical account of how the universe began. There is no scientific story to explain how the universe came into existence. The Big Bang Theory is used to explain arrangements of matter, but it does not necessarily conflict with what we find in Genesis.
Science, as a discipline, cannot offer conclusions about ultimate origins of matter. Science describes in fascinating detail what is observable within the universe. Science speaks of purposes related to adaptability and survival in the physical world. It is blatantly dishonest to suggest that science can prove that nothing beyond nature could have any conceivable relevance to what happens in nature.
A scientist cannot test the philosophy that the physical world is a self-contained system of impersonal natural laws without any outside involvement from a God or a Creator. Honest scientists know this — even if they fear social and academic consequences of admitting it. Students should not be taught that such a view is based on scientific research. One who teaches that the science of evolution leads to the philosophy of naturalism is suggesting something that the discipline of science is not capable of telling us.
This is a primary error in the propaganda of popular atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. They suggest (often with an air of patronizing arrogance) that if you choose to believe in God or the soul or immaterial beings; if you desire to believe in transcendent values; intrinsic meaning or mystery; if you believe in the supernatural and the spiritual, you’re on your own. You won’t have science to back you up because science has freed us of these ideas much like adults no longer believe in Santa Clause. These atheists should know better than to make such unsubstantiated claims.
Let’s teach our young people to recognize that a professor or author who suggests that science can prescribe truth regarding the ultimate origin of matter has left the discipline of science.
And let’s encourage Church leaders not to speak carelessly on matters of science. I’ve heard plenty of religious leaders suggest that evolution is an enemy of God that contradicts the account of creation. This is a careless because it fails to distinguish the actual science of evolution from the philosophy or worldview of evolution.
Church leaders also must be careful not to make the Genesis account say more than it does. The Bible does not require belief in a certain age for the earth and the Church should not make such an issue a test of orthodoxy. Church leaders are sometimes as disrespectful and condescending as atheists. We need Church leaders and Science teachers to exemplify mutual respect as they help their students distinguish the fields of faith and science.
While truth about ultimate origins cannot be resolved in scientific labs, faith offers a different kind of evidence on this important subject. A helpful line from Scripture states that, “every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4).
The science of evolution is not meant to offer a “story” that parallels the biblical account of creation. It’s not that scientists cannot postulate on the subject based on assumptions or patterns. They can do this in the same way that the science of intelligent design postulates origins based on design.
By confusing faith and science, we’ve failed to respect what each one contributes. On the science end, a better question to ask is whether the idea that the material universe is all there is, was, or ever will be is more rational than believing an intelligent being created the world.