n the world of ideas, we are constantly barraged with challenges to living life with a scriptural worldview. Many of these challenges present themselves in the name of "science." Though science sometimes endures a sort of love/hate relationship with our culture, it is often elevated to a god-like status, with various philosophies appealing to science as a final arbiter in sorting out what is right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate. Appeals are made to science even if little or no science is involved. For example, which is the proposition most preferred: a. homosexual behavior is morally wrong, or b. opposition to homosexuality is homophobic? The choice, clearly, is the more scientific-sounding b.
So what happens when a Christian is confronted with a scientific idea that appears to conflict with what he believes? To begin, we will asume that such a thing as truth exists, and that truth can (at least at times) be understood. For the Christian, the assumption is certainly valid. For example, the Bible is believed by faith to be the revealed truth of God. Likewise for the scientist, truth, at least at some level, may be learned about the natural realm. If this were not so, there would be little point in practicing science (although not all ideas have to be true in some final form in order to be useful for our thinking). Additionally, there would be no point, if this were not true, in any scientist ever telling anyone that certain ideas are incorrect or wrong. By definition, we cannot have a situation where two true ideas simultaneously conflict. If two ideas claiming to be true are in conflict, there is an error in at least one of the two ideas. To put it in a form that answers our original question, the error may be in 1. the idea that is presented, 2. the thinking currently held by the person to whom the idea was presented or, 3. both 1 and 2. We will examine just 1 and 2 separately.
1. Given some of the excesses in the application of science, many would first look for the error in the idea presented. Others, however, are reluctant to question science. It is a good idea to develop both a healthy respect for science, balanced with a healthy skepticism of science. By healthy skepticism I am not referring to an unbalanced distrust that is cynical or belittling. We wouldn't accept everything someone says without checking it out just because he carries a Bible -- so why would we accept everything someone says just because he carries a lab notebook? If something doesn't seem right, then ask questions. Does the data answer the question(s) we are asking? Can the data be explained another way? What might be an alternative explanation or approach? Some curiosity might be helpful.
Problems with ideas which confront us are not usually, "Did Dr. Joe measure x properly?" (Although it is certainly possible he did not.) Usually it is some other problem like an over-extrapolation of the data, the formulation of the problem in an incorrect way (i.e. right solution, wrong problem), or perhaps simple philosophical bias. The idea of the spontaneous origin of life offers several opportunities for examples, but we will limit ourselves to one.
Many would admit that spontaneous origin of life has many
obstacles. However, one criticism that has been lveled at those who deny spontaneous beginning for life is that we have given up on the game. Isn't free enquiry what science is all about? Shouln't we look into the unexplored, figure out the unknown, and so on?
This criticism is valid in many cases, especilly when the problem is technological. A hundred years ago, would we have said, "If God wanted man to fly, He would have given us wings"? If we had, we ould have been wrong. There were things we didn't know -- technological -- that were yet to be discovered. However, this is not always the case, epending upon the nature of the problem. Note that we are not talking about the possibility of creating life, but the spontaneous origin of it.
Not many scientists would put much stock in the building of a "perpetual motion" machine. Why not? Have they given up the game? Frankly, yes. Sometimes it does makes sense to give up -- when the difficulty is not in what you do not know, but in what you do know. This describes the difficulty with "spontaneous origin of life" (in addition to the biblical repudiation of it). This does not mean that origin of life experiments are valueless; they can help to show why spontaneous origin of life has not ever been observed.
2. When confronted with an idea that conflicts with what we think, it may be useful to ask specifically what we perceive the problem to be. Is it a scriptural problem -- or some other? The possibility exists that our understanding is in error -- either of the idea, or with our understanding of what God has revealed on the subject. We are all human and carry around presuppositions that are not necessarily biblical. Many ideas may be fine as possible truths, hypotheses, or are in fact true, but are not Scripture. Those who have done their homework scripturally are more likely to avoid the mistake of confusing this than those who haven't.
To illustrate, let us look at the well-known case of Galileo. It would probably be difficult to count the number of times this case has been held up as an example of how the church was wrong in its opinion concerning natural science (an issue just recently redressed by the Roman Catholic church). But how was it that the Roman church got entangled in this situation? Was it because of a strong adherence to Scripture? To the contrary, it was the result of an adherence to the once respectable geocentric worldview inherited from secular Greek scholars as Eudoxus, Aristotle, Callippus, and Ptolemy.
The church made the mistake of absorbing current cultural assumptions as truth, mixing it up with Scripture, and after several centuries ending up with its theological and scientific pants down. But those Christians who most frequently refer to Galileo's troubles are the very ones who are doing the same thing the Roman church did -- they are mixing Scripture with the current respectable scientific orthodoxy.
In fairness, keeping current philosophies and personal bias in perspective while distinguishing truth from error can be difficult. Sadly the only lesson that seems to have been learned by some is to stay just a little behind the latest scientific thing. Borrowing non-biblical ideas from our contemporary scientific culture is not rare today. So maybe if we don't know the answer to a problem we should just say so. We need to keep close to the text of Scripture, and ask the God of wisdom to grant it to His church.
