A Biblical Guide to Handling Bible-Science Conflicts
It seems to me that there’s an abundance of confusion in the church regarding how to handle apparent conflicts between the popular scientific theories of the day and the Word of God. Nowhere is this conflict more apparent than in the debate over the age of the earth. While I do not find it at all surprising that those outside of the body of Christ believe that the cosmos had its origins in the “big bang” some 14.6 billion years ago, I do find it surprising that many professing Christians accept the big bang timeline. What I find even more perplexing is how, and by whom, the Scriptures are used to support the notion of Genesis 1:1 taking place billions of years ago.
Though I view the idea of an “old earth” to be completely incompatible with Scripture, my intent with the present work is not to dive deeply into the reasons why. Rather, I want to take a step back and examine how to handle those awkward situations when “science” and the Bible appear to be at odds with one another.
Science is Helpful
First, let’s get something very clear right up front. I’m a big fan of science–by which I mean the systematic study of the world around us for the purpose of discovering how things work, and how we can be more effective stewards of God’s creation. The scientific method has put man on the moon, and has made this laptop upon which I type thinner, faster, and more powerful than any computer I’ve owned previously. Science has also, from time to time, come to aid of the theologian to correct his understanding of the natural world.
The most famous example of science serving in this capacity would probably have to be in the matter of the position of our earth in our solar system. Some theologians once argued for geocentricity (a “fixed earth,” with the sun and other planets revolving around it) from passages such as these:
…Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. – 1 Chronicles 16:30
…Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. – Psalm 93:1
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever. – Psalm 104:5 KJV
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He set the world on them. – I Samuel 2:8
…[the sun’s] rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat. – Psalm 19:4-6
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. – Ecclesiastes 1:5
…as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory – Joshua 1:4
Do you see the error in using these verses to support geocentricity? I’ll call them out later in this article. Keep reading!
Science Has Limits
As beneficial as science is to us, it is not without its limitations.
Science relies upon inductive reasoning
“...the scientific method deals with probabilities, not absolutes. It’s not bad or good–it just is what it is.”
Inductive reasoning is the process by which we move from specific observations to a general principle, or theory, to describe what is observed and make predictions about future results. For example, if I pull one hundred red marbles from a bag, I might conclude that all of the marbles in the bag are red. I don’t have all the data (i.e. have not looked at every single marble), but it would seem plausible that the remaining marbles are all red. Of course, the obvious problem with this form of reasoning is that it is inconclusive until all the marbles are examined. In this particular case, I’m only ever one pick away from having my theory falsified (invalidated), at which point I’d have to formulate another theory to explain what I’m seeing.
In a nutshell, the scientific method deals with probabilities, not absolutes. It’s not bad or good–it just is what it is.
Science Is Practiced by Fallible Humans
As much as we’d like to think that scientists are perfectly unbiased, honest, and trustworthy, the reality is that they’re no different than the average Joe. We all have our own biases, we’re not always honest, and we’re not always trustworthy. Now, by and large, this is a self-correcting system–the process of peer review does tend to expose error (whether it be intentional or accidental) and the truth does have a tendency to come out in time, which is encouraging and inspires confidence in the long term. However, in the short term, we can find ourselves believing theories that are just plain wrong (geocentrism, bloodletting, eternal universe, etc.), and those who seek to refute them can be met with intense resistance and persecution.
The Bible
As an evangelical Christian, I hold to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which, in a nutshell, holds that the Bible is, in its original autographs:
true and reliable in all matters it addresses, and
that it is free from falsehood, fraud, and deceit.
But, of course, students of the Bible are just as human (i.e., fallible) as scientists, so we too are prone to bias, dishonesty, and errors in interpretation. Like scientific research, I believe that biblical interpretation is also, by and large, a self-correcting venture. There are definite rules to follow when interpreting the text, and when someone “breaks the rules,” there is no shortage of other believers who will set one straight (what science calls “peer review,” we call “accountability”).
I also believe that while there are some difficult passages in scripture, and some apparent contradictions, there are no actual contradictions–since God is not the author of confusion and cannot lie, I believe that anything that looks like a contradiction is always a failure of ours to understand–not a failure on God’s part to inspire or preserve His Word.
Reconciling the Conflict
So, what are we to do when the Bible and science seem to say opposite things?
When taken at face value, the Genesis account seems to point strongly in the direction of creation over the course of six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago, yet the standard (big bang) cosmological model insists on a 13.8 billion-year-old cosmos and a 4.6 billion-year-old earth. The scientific evidence suggesting an “old” universe seems insurmountable, so what are we to do with the Bible? Reinterpret it? Throw it out? Become “science deniers”?
I’d like to suggest a simple, three-question diagnostic:
Do I correctly understand the theory and the biblical passages that speak to it?
Does the theory directly contradict what the Bible says?
Does the theory cause the Bible to contradict itself?
Let’s walk through these questions one by one.
Question 1: “Do I correctly understand the theory and the biblical passages that speak to it?”
“He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.”
I cannot overstate how crucial this step is. If you do not truly understand the scientific theory at hand, how can you possibly know whether it is compatible with the Bible or not?
Understand the Theory
A common error I see on social media is Christians saying things like, “I didn’t evolve from a monkey!” But this is not what evolutionists believe; they believe that apes and humans are both descended from a common ancestor–so we’re not grandchildren of apes, but rather more like cousins. Now, you might see this as a distinction without a difference, but I guarantee you that evolutionists do not. You will destroy your own credibility if you misrepresent your opponent’s position, and he will be much less likely to take you seriously.
Understand the Bible
The same goes for the Bible. It’s absolutely essential that you understand the passage(s) in context, and use good hermeneutics (that’s the art and science of interpretation). When context is ignored or overlooked, we’re subject to arguing for positions that the Bible does not take. Here are some common examples that come immediately to mind:
I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. – Philippians 4:13
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen well-meaning athletes “name it and claim it” with this verse to give them the inspiration to help them win a game, or in a well-intentioned effort to give God the glory for a victory. But in context, this verse has nothing to do with playing on a sprained ankle or winning a dunk contest–it has everything to do with enduring persecution and suffering for the name of Christ.
For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. – Matthew 18:20
Isn’t it great that when we gather to worship, Christ is there in our midst? Only, that’s not what this verse says. In context, it is talking about Christ endorsing, or backing, church discipline. When a matter of discipline is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses, it’s as if Christ is there, giving His approval.
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. – Matthew 7:1
I wrote a whole article on this: “On Specs, Stones, and Judging.”
About That Geocentrism…
Now, let’s revisit the verses that I cited above which some have used to argue for geocentrism, and note the errors being committed in their application:
1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, 1 Samuel 2:8: The error is ignoring the genre of the text cited, and treating poetic passages that use poetic metaphor as if they were didactic prose; and
Psalm 19:4-6, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 1:4: Using these is not only a failure to recognize phenomenological language for what it is, but it is also special pleading. “Phenomenological language” is nothing more than describing things as they appear from a particular vantage point. From our perspective on Earth, the sun does appear to rise in the east and set in the west. This is also special pleading (the logical fallacy of using a double standard) because modern day meteorologists routinely use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset,” but I’m guessing that none of them is a closet geocentrist!
“To discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help us in our hope of the life to come.”
When the Roman Catholic Church adopted geocentrism, it wasn’t because that’s what the Bible taught–rather, it appears that Church leadership simply bought into a theory which was endorsed by Aristotle and given mathematical credence by Claudius Ptolemy.
In other words, they did not critically examine the theory to see if it is consistent with Scripture (cf. Acts 17:11)–rather, they said, “Meh. Whatevs,” (in Latin, of course) and went back to selling indulgences and such.
Question 2: “Does the theory contradict what the Bible says?”
You didn’t skip Question 1, did you? Because if you don’t correctly understand the theory and the affected biblical passages, you simply cannot answer this question with any confidence. If the answer is “yes,” then if you’re going to claim to have a biblical worldview, then the theory has to be rejected–no matter how many people support it. For example:
“The body contains for ‘humors’: blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. If you’re sick, you need to let out some blood to correct the imbalance.”
But Leviticus 17:11 tells us that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” So, naturally, it stands to reason that if you let out too much of the stuff that has “the life” in it, then the person you’re bleeding is going to die. Too bad George Washington’s learned physicians hadn’t read Leviticus.
“Spontaneous generation is a thing, guys. Maggots come from rotting meat!”
Well, no, that’s not true–Genesis 1 says over and over again that living things reproduce after their respective kinds: life always comes from life, never from non-life. Nowadays we call this the law of biogenesis (hat tip to Louis Pasteur).
If the answer to this question is, “Yes, this theory does contradict what the Bible says.” Then, if you are going to think biblically, you must reject the theory. If you are confident in your understanding of Scripture and the scientific theory, and you can confidently say, “No, this theory does not contradict what the Bible says,” then you can move on to Question 3.
Question 3: “Does accepting the theory cause the Bible to contradict itself?”
Answering this question is going to require a bit more work than the previous ones, because not only does it require that you understand a scientific theory and the Bible passages that address the topic, but you also have to be aware of passages that do not directly address the issue at hand but are nonetheless affected by it.
For example, in an attempt to reconcile the biblical creation account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 with the millions of years required by both Darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology, some have argued that the days of creation are actually each indeterminately-long ages or epochs of time. But this causes many conflicts and contradictions elsewhere in scripture. Here are but two of them:
God created Adam on Day 6 of creation (Genesis 1:26-31), which means that Adam lived through at least part of Day 6 and the entirety of Day 7. But when we get to Genesis 5:5, we read, “So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.” So, if the days of creation week are indeterminately-long epochs of time, each lasting millions of years, then we have to pick a conclusion:
Genesis 5:5 is an error,
Genesis 5:5 is a lie, or
Numbers and times are meaningless or unreliable in the Bible.
In Mark 10:6 and its parallel, Matthew 19:4, Jesus said, “God created them male and female,” at the beginning. But if the beginning were 13.8 billion years ago, and if anatomically modern man has only been on the planet on the order of 100,000 years, then that would put Adam and Eve at the end of a cosmological timeline, not at the beginning. This would make Jesus either misinformed, or a liar. See https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/jesus-devastates-an-old-earth/ for more on this argument.
If the answer to this question is, “Yes, this theory causes the Bible to contradict itself.” Then, if you are going to think biblically, you must reject the theory. Otherwise, if it does not appear to cause the Bible to contradict itself, you should feel free to accept the theory—at least tentatively. Just keep in mind the sage words of Agent K in the movie Men In Black: “Imagine what you’ll know…tomorrow.”
Conclusion
The attack against the authority of scripture is relentless, as is abundantly clear from the prolonged challenges of Darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology, both of which attempt to explain who we are and how we got here without invoking a sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial creator–they make God obsolete. And thanks to the powerful marketing of these ideas at all levels of culture: from kindergarten to college, from the movies to music, from social media to the nightly news, it’s hard to find someone who does not believe them. Rather than boldly standing up and speaking out against unbiblical theories, many Christians have chosen to interpret Scripture in light of our current understanding of the world, rather than interpreting scientific theories in light of Scripture.
Swimming against the current of secular philosophy is hard. It’s no fun to be mocked for standing on the Word of God, to be called a “flat-earther” or a “science denier,” but Jesus explicitly warned us about this:
“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ – John 15:18-25
The 2003 Pixar film Finding Nemo, is one of my favorite movies—it’s got talking fish, sharks that proclaim, “Fish are friends, not food. Except dolphins!” and a surprising number of profound lessons to be learned. In one scene, Dori and a large school of fish are caught in a trawling net which is slowing being hauled to the surface. The situation looks bleak, and the fish begin to panic, but as death draws nigh, a tiny clown fish admonishes the school to “Swim down!” To encourage one another as they fight for their lives, the snared fish all begin to chant, “Keep swimming!” Their perseverance eventually pays off as their collective effort breaks the winch and sets the captive fish free. Watch it for yourself:
When it comes to the constant pull to draw us out of the truth of God’s Word, we need to swim down together…and keep swimming.