The Bible and Modern Science

 

Question One

Nicolaus Copernicus is mainly commended for his heliocentric theory which pioneered scientific revolution hence setting the stage for modern science. According to his theory founded in the sixteenth century, the sun is at the center, and the planets revolve around it. This challenged the widely accepted notion that the earth was at the center. Theologians, drawing from the Bible, believed that the heavens surrounded the earth. Therefore, Copernicus’s works, later on, came under heavy criticism from the Holy Catholic Church during the days of Galileo. Modern science has, however, verified the heliocentric theory.

            Galileo Galilei is mainly credited with observational astronomy in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Using telescopes, he was able to observe celestial objects and obtain more detail about them such as Saturn’s rings and moons of Jupiter. His observations led him to be a champion of the heliocentric theory which had been presented by Copernicus. Unlike the time of Copernicus, Galileo’s stand brought up a lot of controversies and attracted the attention of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church rebuked Galileo’s heliocentric views terming them as foolish and heretic since they contradicted the Holy Scripture on many occasions. The conflict was so immense that Galileo was placed under house arrest. His observations have, however, greatly contributed to our understanding of the universe.

            Sir Isaac Newton made great scientific contributions in the fields of mathematics, physics, and astronomy. His discoveries, such as the laws of motion, have led to a better understanding of our universe. However, some of his work was considered heresy by the church. Newton lived in the age of enlightenment, hence, he subscribed to reason more than theology despite being a theologian. Rather than accept God as the creator by faith, he set out to prove this through astronomy. Newton noted that the way the planets, sun, and comets moved in such remarkable alignment was an indication of the great works of God. Although, this did not dispute God as the creator, trying to prove Him was unacceptable by the church.

            Charles Darwin is credited for his works in biological evolution in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. From his research, Darwin discovered that species evolve for the sake of survival. He further indicated that those which fail to evolve and adapt face extinction. His findings led to a lot of controversies during his time and even up to date. This is mainly because the evolution theory challenged the Bible creation narrative by stating that creatures including people have evolved from different life forms. However, his findings have been verified, corrected, and expanded upon by modern science. Some Christians have also accepted pats of his theory.

Columbus is known for having opened up the Americas to the rest of the world. His expeditions in the late 16^th century led to his discovery of the West Indies and later on South, Central, and North America. Although it had become widely accepted that the world was spherical, many catholic theologians insisted the world was flat. Therefore, Columbus claim that he could go around the Atlantic to reach the continent of Asia from Europe was met with criticism. It was only after persistent lobbying that he obtained sponsorship for his endeavors. Although he never arrived at his destination, His voyage led to a better understanding of the earth as a sphere.

Question Two: Creationism and Intelligent Design

Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) feature as one of the main discussions by Mitchell and Blackard, hence the need to compare the two views. Creationism maintains the Biblical view that God is the creator. ID, on the other hand, seeks evidence of design in the universe, through scientific methodology. The authors, therefore, note that one of the major differences between the two is that one is guided by faith, while the other attempts to find proof in science. Creationism does not require one to design tests to prove the existence of God as the creator. On the contrary, ID uses the complexities in our biology and physical systems to point towards the existence of an intelligent designer. Despite this difference, the authors are not oblivious of similarity between the two. Both creationism and ID point towards one powerful being as the creator of the difference. The authors agree that God is the intelligent designer behind the universe and the process of evolution. However, this does not mean that they agree with the ID movement. Instead, they view ID as having neither a scientific basis nor a theological background. It is based on the search for patterns that may or may not exist. This creates another difference between the two views. Creationism is firmly based in theology but ID has been criticized as having no firm basis. According to the authors, proponents of the ID movement have refuted well-known scientific facts in the past hence losing credibility. The authors point out that this was a major reason why ID proponents lost a court case contesting the teaching of ID ideas in schools.

Creationism has both proponents and critics. The major proponents of creationism, according to the authors, are the Christians of faith. These include both the common folks as well as those who have studied theology. This is evident from the court case presented in the state of Pennsylvania. It is worth noting that the plaintiffs were ordinary parents of students enrolled in the Dover area school district. When it comes to critics of creationism, these majorly include those who subscribe to Darwin’s theory of creation. This theory, explains how species evolved according to their environmental conditions, in a bid for survival. Hence, according to evolution, species including people were not created by God but rather have slowly evolved from tiny organisms to what they are today. Other major critics are the subscribers of the Big Bang Theory. This theory states that the universe resulted from a huge explosion. According to the authors, theologians have not found any elements in the bible that are parallel to this theory.

ID also has its proponents as well as critics. Major proponents include individuals and institutions which hold the views of eminent figures in telelology. These include Plato, Aristotle, and William Paley. They held the view that there must have been a prime mover for the universe. Notably, Paley argued that the natural world is so complex that it must be designed. These ideas laid the foundation for the modern ID movement. The major critics of ID include both Christians and Scientists. According to the authors, scientists criticize ID for lacking a scientific basis. The ideas that ID proposes are not based on scientific principles, hence they are not testable. Also, on several occasions, ID proponents have disputed well-known scientific facts hence making it unpopular. Christians also disagree strongly with the fact that the ID movement seeks science in the Bible, a move that is they consider erroneous.

Question Three: Reconciling the Bible and Science

In the book “Reconciling the Bible and Science”, Mitchell and Blackard explain that the conflict between the Bible and science can be reconciled. Rather than antagonizing the two, the authors regard the Bible and science as both books of God. They, therefore, do not aim to challenge the legitimacy of either the books. They admit that both science and the Bible have an important role to play in our lives. The two authors are against the kind of faith that calls for ignorance towards science facts. Similarly, the rejection of faith in God based on scientific facts is deemed unnecessary. The book explains that the two can coexist. The problem, as the authors see it, is that the two books have been mixed up in the wrong way. It must be understood that the Bible and science serve different purposes. The Bible explores the meaning of life which is sustained by God as the creator. On the other hand, science explains how life and the universe developed without an account of the meaning of life. Hence the two books of God are written in different contexts and for different purposes.

The book addresses the major controversial issue, creation, which is challenged by Darwin’s evolution theory. The authors see no need for this controversy. The problem arises out of interpreting the Genesis creation stories literary and in a scientific context. On the contrary, the creation story was written in a theological context and in a time when modern science was unknown. Hence it is wrong and careless, to expect the ancient scripture to be concordant with modern science. To simply put it, the Bible is not a science book. The authors explain that the purpose of the Genesis creation stories is to oppose polytheism. Genesis was written at a time when there were deep concerns about Mid-Eastern polytheistic accounts of creation. The creation stories, hence, served their purpose to assert that there is only one God who is the creator. With this understanding, the authors hope to extinguish the Bible-science conflict. To keep a healthy tension going forward, they recognize evolution as a true but theistic account. As such, it should be understood that God is the creator who works through evolution. This explanation is an attempt to merge the two books of God: the Bible and science. To accept this requires two things. First is the understanding that the creation story should not be taken literary. Second is the acceptance of science as also a book of God. Hence theories such as evolution explain God’s work in a scientific context.

Question Four: Scenes from the Film “Creation”

In the film “Creation”, Charles Darwin goes through emotional and spiritual turmoil as he attempts to come into terms with his scientific findings on evolution. This turmoil is a result of the conflict between his faith and science. Although it is justified, there are scenes from the film where the conflict appears overblown. One such scene involves Darwin and his friends from the scientific community, Mr. Hooker and Mr. Huxley. The two gentlemen visit Darwin to inquire the reason as to why he is reluctant to release his theory to the general public. They hope to encourage him to proceed with publishing his findings. While taking a walk in the woods, Huxley stops and tells Darwin that he has killed God through his theory. He goes on to talk about how science is at war with religion. These words fill Darwin with dread as they threaten to disrupt the foundation upon which the society is built upon. While Darwin’s theory brings about controversy, claiming that he has killed God is an exaggeration of the conflict. After all, it is only a theory that challenges one section of the Bible regarding the creation story.

In other scenes, there appears to be an apparent resolution to the conflict. One of these scenes occurs when Darwin and his family, as well as friends, are spending quality time outdoors. Turning to his friend Reverend Innes, he asks why nature is so cruel as to allow thousands to die just so that a few can survive. The reverend replies that such occurrences are according to God’s plan. However, Darwin, being a scientist, appears to view such an explanation as vague. He is convinced that nature’s cruelty is unjustifiable. He terms such plan as wasteful. However, the reverend explains that it is not up to him to speculate God’s ways and that nature is at peace. At this point, it appears that Darwin’s conflict between faith and science is resolved as he looks into the distance with meditation. All Darwin has to do is take his friend’s words to heart and find solace in them. However, this is not to be the case as Darwin loses Faith completely in the scenes that follow. The fact that the friend is a reverend presents a unique conversation between science and faith. However, the conversation is hindered by the fact that, at that time, questioning Christianity is deemed unacceptable. This is evidenced by the way the reverend rashes at Darwin as if to silence him. The discussion is therefore quite short and close-minded.