QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
DR. JIM DIXON
PSALMS 8:1-9
JANUARY 13, 2008
We are beginning, as Gene said, a new series based on questions from you, the congregation. As Gene said, as of Thursday we had over 400 questions. I don’t know how many have been turned in as of today but you’re going to be glad to know that this will not be a 400-part series. What we’ve done is kind of lumped all of these questions into six categories and I’m going to take 6 weeks and do my best to answer them. I want you to know that I am not the “answer man.” I will do my best to answer these questions based on some years of study, but I think we should acknowledge as we begin this process that in the Christian life and in the Christian faith there are significant areas of mystery and faith embraces truth and trust God with regard to the mysteries.
There are many things in the Bible that are absolutely clear and we proclaim them decisively. There are other areas that are more enigmatic. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, that “Now we know in part. One day we will know fully even as we have been fully known,” and that “we now see in a mirror dimly.” Much of life remains a puzzle. We’re not going to try to take the puzzle away. We don’t have God in a box. We’re going to do our best to answer these questions but I hope that you feel excitement about embracing some mystery as well.
Galileo was born on February 15 in Pisa, Italy, in the year 1564. He was, in his time, one of the greatest astronomers, one of the greatest physicists. He conducted experiments in the realm of gravity, experiments with regard to the pendulum and its principals and experiments with regard to the telescope. He has been called and today is called “The Father of Modern Experimental Science.” He received his formal education in a monastery. Galileo lived his entire life in the hope that he would never offend Christ or His church, but he seemed bound to offend the church. It seemed inevitable that he would offend the church.
In the year 1613 he published his paper on Copernican Theory. Copernicus died 21 years before Galileo was born and you should know that Copernicus dedicated his life’s work to Pope Paul III, to Christ, and to the church. And yet Copernicus was ultimately condemned by the church, condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and condemned by Martin Luther. So Copernicus was condemned by both Catholics and Protestants. Why was that? He was condemned because of his theory, which today is called “The Copernican Theory.” And that theory was that the earth is not the center of the universe. The church of Jesus Christ thought, “Well, why would Jesus come to earth if it wasn’t the center of the universe?” And so, they condemned Copernicus.
Here comes Galileo, and the year is 1613. He writes his paper on the Copernican Theory and the church is watching. Who is Galileo, educated in a monastery? What is he going to say about the Copernican Theory? Galileo sides with Copernicus and Galileo says that the theories of Copernicus and the repudiation of a geocentric universe fits well with Christianity. He said the Copernican Theory fits well with holy scripture, it fits well with the Bible, and we should not hesitate to endorse the Copernican Theory.
The church became enraged. They told Galileo that he had to be quiet, that he could not publicly endorse the Copernican Theory or he would be charged with heresy and incarcerated. That was 1613. In 1632, Galileo crafted his classic book, his great work, which was called “Dialog Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.” Of course, the Two Chief World Systems were the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian World System and then the Copernican World System. The Ptolemaic World System was geocentric—the earth is the center of the solar system and the universe. The Copernican System was heliocentric—the sun was the center of the solar system. And Copernicus also thought sun was the center of the universe but that the earth moves around the sun. And so, Galileo proved this with physics and presented it to the world. He was condemned by the church of Jesus Christ, condemned and charged with heresy and incarcerated and he lived under house arrest for the rest of his life.
We scroll forward in time and come to 1979 and Pope John Paul II. He established a commission to examine the actions of the church with regard to Galileo. In 1983, the commission determined that the church was wrong. In 1992, Pope John Paul II issued his official exoneration of Galileo, more than 300 years after Galileo’s death—too little, too late.
You can look back in history and if you’re honest there is this conflict oftentimes between science and religion, science and the Bible. Sometimes the church is prejudiced and fearful. Sometimes science is prejudiced and fearful. The truth is that science and the Bible both have to do with truth and they use different epistemology. They have different means of determining truth. So, science uses the epistemology of the Empirical Method, the epistemology of inductive and deductive reasoning, the epistemology of sensory observation. These are the epistemologies of science, and they work well with determining physical truth in the physical realm. They don’t work so well in determining spiritual truth. Science just doesn’t have that epistemology. Then you look at the Bible and it has a different epistemology, divine revelation, which works well in the realm of the spiritual. The truth is that the Bible and science in a real sense should be joined together because all truth is God’s truth.
You’ve written lots of questions and I would like us to begin by looking at evolution. I would like us to begin by looking at creation and evolution because the overwhelming majority of your questions with regard to science and the Bible have to do with creation and evolution.
Of course, in the United States of America, the subject of evolution and its controversy really kind of peaked in 1925 at the trial of John Thomas Scopes, sometimes called “The Monkey Trial.” It was in Tennessee. You might recall that Scopes was a high school teacher and he taught the theory of evolution to his high school class. That was in violation of a Tennessee law that made it illegal to teach the theory of evolution in public schools. And so, Scopes was brought to trial. He was defended by Clarence Darrow, a famous attorney. The prosecution was represented by William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President of the United States three times, and he also was famous. Bryan had declared himself a Christian Fundamentalist who interpreted every word of the Bible literally. He sought the prosecution of Scopes for teaching evolution.
As people observed the trial, most people who observed it determined that actually Clarence Darrow kind of won all the arguments. But in accordance with the prosecution Scopes was condemned and he was fined $100, which was no huge deal. Ultimately the decision was reversed based on a technicality, but the argument continues still and that law condemning the teaching of evolution in schools lasted in Tennessee until 1967. And it was 1968 when the United States Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional to forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. That was 1968. Today, virtually all public schools teach the theory of evolution, and the irony is that today what is not allowed in many public schools is to mention God or a Creator or any concept of intelligent design. There has been a reversal of fortune in the educational system here in America.
So, we look at contemporary Christian views with regard to evolution/creation. I would suggest to you that there are three contemporary Christian views with regard to evolution/creation. The first view is called Theistic Evolution. There are many Christians throughout America and around the world who advocate Theistic Evolution. Evolution is simply a word which means, “change over time.” Of course, the question is, “How much change and over how much time?”
Darwinian Evolution taught that all life on earth has evolved from more primitive forms of life, that long ago—millions of years ago—out of the primordial ooze there arose the first living cell, a single-celled amoeba. From this first living cell evolved, through the millions of years through a process of natural selection and cell mutation, all of the complexity of life now existing on the globe, including man. That’s Darwinian Evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists kind of buys all of that. Theistic Evolutionists are Christians who say, “Okay. We buy that, but we see the hand of God in it.” Of course, this is the view of the Roman Catholic Church today. It was Pope John Paul II who years ago declared Theistic Evolution as the view of the Papacy, although his statement is still being debated. But it is true that Theistic Evolutionists taught in Roman Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities, and it’s also taught in many Protestant colleges and universities. The idea of most Theistic Evolutionists is that God, as He guided this process of evolution and as it led to primates and ultimately modem man, eventually and at just the right time breathed soul into man, the breath of “zoe,” the breath of life. And man was fashioned in the imago Dei, in the image of God. This is the view of Theistic Evolution.
You might say, “Well, how do they reconcile Theistic Evolution with Genesis? How do they reconcile it with Genesis chapters 1, 2, and 3?” The answer is that Theistic Evolutionists point out that in the Bible there are varieties of literary genres. And that is true. In the Bible there ARE a variety of literary genres. There’s apocalyptic literature. There’s parabolic literature in the Bible. There’s allegorical literature in the Bible. There is poetry and poetic literature in the Bible. There’s historical narrative in the Bible. There are many, many literary genres. That is true and they are all from God. God has, in His creative diversity, given us His Word using all of these genres, all inspired of Him.
The question of course is, “What is Genesis 1, 2, and 3? What’s the literary genre there? Is this historical narrative?” Theistic Evolutionists say no. Theistic Evolutionists say that here God is using the literary genre of parable and allegory. They point out that in ancient parabiblical literature, oftentimes when the literature is allegorical you see magic trees, talking animals, and characters with symbolic names. They look at the Genesis account and say, “That’s what we see. We see magic trees, two magic trees, one of which gives eternal life. We see a talking snake and we see names, Adam and Eve, which are symbolic—Adam meaning, ‘earth from which he came,’ Eve meaning, ‘life,’ for she is life giver.”
So, they would say this is clearly allegorical, parabolic literature and therefore we are to treat it, as the Word of God, infallible but allegorical. And therefore, in any allegory or in any parable we look at what the message is. And the message is, “God is the Creator. Man is the crown of God’s creation. We are now separated from God and in need of a Savior.” This is the argument and the perspective of those Christians who represent Theistic Evolution.
Now, I am not a Theistic Evolutionist. That is not the view that I would espouse. I do, however, have many Christian brothers and sisters who are Theistic Evolutionists and who love Jesus. We’re friends and I respect them. As we serve Jesus, we hold hands. This is very important as we look at these issues because there’s too much division in the Body of Jesus Christ. I want to make that clear.
The reason I’m not a Theistic Evolutionist is because while I will acknowledge that while in Genesis there appears to be allegorical and parabolic elements, it is also true that in the Old and New Testament in general Adam and Eve are viewed as historical. Then I would also say this: There are problems with Darwinian Evolution as a system, as an explanation for all of life. Of course, there is an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. That was a glaring weakness in the days of Charles Darwin when he wrote “Origin of the Species.” But the incredible thing is nothing changed. The assumption by Darwin and all of his followers was that, over time, surely the fossil record would reveal all of these transitional forms that would bridge the gaps. And it simply hasn’t happened. It’s true that in 1869 the Archaeopteryx was discovered, a fossil that kind of looked to bridge reptiles and birds, but now that fossil is kind of interpreted differently and there’s been virtually nothing else.
I will acknowledge that as you look at our nation, and indeed the entire world, most scientists today do advocate Darwinian Evolution. Most do, but a growing number of scientists today are beginning to question Darwinian Evolution as an explanation for all life existent on the earth. They’re beginning to question it, not just in terms of the fossil record and the absence of transitional forms, but they’re beginning to question it biochemically and they’re beginning to question it geologically. They’re pointing to many problems in the theory.
There’s a book, “The Case for a Creator,” by Lee Strobel. I really recommend this book to you. I’ve read it recently. It does a wonderful job—Lee Strobel does a wonderful job in every book he writes—of just looking at scientific articles from Harvard to Stanford that are coming onto the stage now questioning the theory of evolution as a full explanation of existent life. And more and more scientists are beginning to question. This is a great book to kind of get a summary of all of that.
A second view in the contemporary Christian world is of course the 6-day, 24-hour view. This is the traditional view, is it not? The 6-day, 24-hour view of creation is that on the first day God created light. On the second day God created the firmament. On the third day God created vegetation. On the fourth day, luminaries; on the fifth day, birds and fish; and on the sixth day, animals and man. On the seventh day, God rested. Of course, those are the six days from Genesis. These days are viewed as 24 hours. They are viewed as consecutive, with no gap between them. Most Christians who hold this traditional view would acknowledge that there might be a minimal amount of evolution throughout history, but nothing that would bridge species to species.
When you look at biological classifications, you move from species to genus and you move on and on until you come to kingdom according to classifications of biology. Those who hold this traditional view would say, “evolution is very limited.” They would say, “God created dogs. God created cats. We have canines. We have felines. There may be some variation there over time but basically a dog’s a dog and a cat’s a cat.” Of course, those who hold this view, the traditional view, normally would say, “The earth is young, maybe between 5,000 and 7,000 years,” à la Bishop Ussher. So they would be “young earth theorists.” They would view the fossil record and certainly the geological column as distorted because of the global deluge. They would look at all radioactive dating methods as suspect, not just Carbon 14 but Potassium Argon and Uranium Lead. All forms of radioactive dating they would view as highly suspect.
With regard to the fossil record, those who hold this traditional view would buy into (and with regard to a young earth) what is often come to be called the Apparent Age Theory. The Apparent Age Theory teaches that God created with apparent age. Adam and Eve, for instance, would have appeared to have been about 20 years old but the truth is they were one day old. God created with apparent age. Those who hold this traditional would then project that out on the universe. So you can look at the nearest spiral galaxy, Andromeda, two million light years from our galaxy and from earth. That means that light moving at 186,000 miles per second takes two million years to reach us. Because of apparent age, when God created, the light was already reaching us because there was apparent age. So it didn’t take that light two million years to reach us. It just was created that way.
Some traditionalists with the 6-day, 24-hour view would also adapt apparent age even to the earth and the fossil record so that God created an earth that appeared to be old with fossils and a geological column. Of course, that results in kind of a tricky God with a tricked-up creation, but still some do hold that view.
Then you’ll also find in the traditional view with the 6-day, 24-hour view, that the fossil record is partly explained by the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory is that really there were two creations. Genesis 1:1 through 1:3 speak of two creations. The first creation is Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Then in Genesis 1:2, it all was destroyed. “The earth was without form and void.” The Hebrew verb “to be” there is rendered “became,” so the earth “became without form and void.” So that that first creation fell into destruction and then in Genesis 1:3 there is a new creation. It all starts over again, so that the fossil record is from the first creation and is irrelevant to us today. That’s the Gap Theory.
All of this is part of those who hold the traditional 6-day, 24-hour view. Again, I have many brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ who hold the 6-day, 24-hour view, their traditional view. I am not in their camp, but we love Christ together. We hold hands and we serve Christ together. If you would like to know more about the traditional 6-day, 24-hour view, I suggest you go on the Web and you look at the ITR website (The Institute for Creation Research) or you go to the BSA website (that’s Bible Science Association). Those two websites have articles defending the traditional 6-day, 24-hour view. Some of the authors like Henry Morris and like John Morris, who is his son, Russell Humphreys, Ken Ham, Duane Gish, I’ve read their books. I’ve read most of their books and I find them fascinating. What bugs me is they tend to demonize their opponents. Don’t let that be true of you. But there is fascinating stuff in their books. I’m not on the whole convinced by their arguments, but there is fascinating stuff and I think it is good.
Whatever view you take of God’s creation, I think it good to read a variety of books. I think the problem with a lot of Christians is they just read one perspective and then they’re more or less indoctrinated. They just read one perspective. They don’t read any scope. They read point but they don’t read counter-point. The truth is we need to read point, counter-point, and then counter-point to counter-point. We need to be honest as we examine the data.
There’s a third view. The third view is the view I prefer, although I don’t hold it dogmatically. The third view is the Day Age View. Sometimes is has been called the Day Age Theory. This is simply the view that the six days of Genesis were six ages, six periods of time, and it centers on the Hebrew word “Yom.” The Hebrew word Yom is the word for day. In the Bible this word has some flexibility. In parabiblical literature oftentimes the word Yom can be used to refer to an age or a vast period of time. In Genesis, chapter 1, each of the days are called Yom. You come to Genesis 2, verse 4, and the whole week of creation, the whole 7 days are called a Yom. So the whole 7 days, the whole week, is called a day, a Yom.
You look at Genesis, chapter 2, verses 7-24, and you see the 6th day. As you read about the 6th day, it’s clearly longer than 24 hours. In the 6th day, God creates animals and God creates man. Then after man gets lonely over a period of time, God finally creates woman. Could all that have happened in a day? I mean, women are great, but would you miss them that much in a 24-hour period?
It seems to me the word Yom is kind of a flexible word. And then in the Bible the 40 years in the wilderness is called a Yom. Did you know that? The 40 years in the wilderness is called a Yom. Of course, it’s also true as you look in Hebrews, chapter 4, verses 1-11, that the seventh day we’re told is still going on. God created in six days and on the seventh day He rested. And then it says He’s still in the seventh day. There’s this argument in Hebrews, chapter 4, verses 1-11, that the seventh day continues. So it’s been going on for millennia. If the seventh day can last for millennia, why can’t the first six days?
Of course, you come to 2 Peter, chapter 3, and we’re told that, “With the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day.” What is a day to God? And so, the Day Age Theory is that God created in six ages. And within each of those ages, there’s some evolution, but there are no transitional forms in the fossil record because each gap in the fossil record represents a new day of creation. There’s no new creative input by God. There are no transitional forms because there are no transitional forms. So, you have this 6-day Day Age Theory of creation.
Dr. Hugh Ross has written some great books on the Day Age view and “Creation and Time” is a book I would highly recommend that you read. Then also he has written “Origins of Life.” Hugh Ross has written many other books from this perspective. What I would like to say is whatever view you hold as a Christian, you know God created. He is the Creator, and the Creation reflects intelligent design. You know that we are indeed the crown of His creation and greatly loved of Him. You know that we are separated from Him and in need of a Savior indeed. I would say this: Whatever view you hold, treat people lovingly. The devil wins when the Body of Jesus is divided. So, learn to respect people who think a little differently than you and let’s love each other. Let’s love Jesus together and serve Him with all of our hearts.
If you look at what is happening in the scientific world today, it’s incredible. If you look at astronomy and astrophysics, if you do any reading on cosmology, you know scientists are making amazing discoveries and forming amazing theories. If you read anything in the world of quantum physics or you read anything about quarks or string theory or multi-dimensions or parallel universes, the theories out there are just fun and exciting. It’s really a ton of fun to read. But as you read all the stuff, how could anyone possibly think that it all spontaneously generated “ex nihilo?” God is powerful and His creation is glorious. We should approach it with great humility. We should approach these subjects as Christians with great humility and not with judgementalness and condemnation.
I want to, as we conclude, just say a few words about the authority of the Bible, the authority of scripture. I thought about not preaching today, what with the writer’s strike and all… Can you believe the Golden Globes aren’t going to happen? That just seems amazing. Of course, Leno and Letterman kind of bailed out for a while because of the writer’s strike but the difference between me and Leno and Letterman is, a) they’re rich, b) they’re talented, and c) they’re dependent on contemporary writers. But, you see, this is what I have: The Bible. This is what I have and I am a steward of God. I acknowledge that the Bible, the biblical books, were written by biblical writers. But they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And this Book has the breath of God upon it. All scripture is inspired of God, God-breathed, “Theopneustos.” It’s profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the person of God might be complete and equipped for every good work.
Now, the Bible was formed in finality at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD. That council was convened by the order of the Roman Emperor Constantine. It was there that the 27 books of the New Testament were determined once and for all to be holy writ. You might think, “Well, that’s a little late. Jesus and the Apostles hung out in the 1st century and you’re talking about 325 AD. Isn’t that 4th century?” Yes, it is, but you need to understand the process that occurred over time. You need to understand the scholarship and the wisdom that existed at the Council of Nicaea. You need to understand that many books were rejected, such as the Gnostic Gospels, because a) they were written 150 years after the biblical book and were historically bogus, and b) the Gnostic Gospels were pseudepigraphic and they had no relationship to the Apostles from the 1st century even though they claimed to.
The Council of Nicaea very carefully prayed for vast periods of time and then studied and examined all that was available. They made, I believe, by the hand of God, brilliant determinations. But I understand it didn’t really just happen in 325AD. Most of the book that you see in the New Testament were already determined to be canonical. And in fact, the Muratorian Canon that was written and compiled 125 years earlier, basically reflects all the same book. The Pauline corpus, all of those letters and books from the Apostle Paul, were being circulated as authoritative in the 1st century. Some of Paul’s books and letters were written as early as 50 AD, not that long after the death of Jesus Christ. We have the testimony of Jesus and His Apostles. This book is authoritative in my life and in yours.
Throughout the centuries Christians have debated the nature of the authority of the Bible. Christians began to use words like “infallible” and “inerrant” with regard to the Bible. The word “infallible” simply means, “to not fail.” That’s the root meaning of infallible, “to not fail.” The determination of the early Christian community was that the Bible would not fail in its purpose. Some would add the word “inerrant” to that with regard to its purpose. But the question is, “What is the purpose of the Bible?” Why is this given to us? Why did Jesus instruct His Apostles to write it and why did He send the Holy Spirit to remind Him of all that He said and did? What’s the purpose?
The evangelical perspective has been, in conjunction with the perspective of the Reformers, that the purpose of the Bible has to do with theology and morality. It has to do with what is called faith and practice. It has to do with what is called orthodoxy and orthopraxy, theology and morality. The evangelical perspective is that with regard to theology and morality, the Bible is infallible and inerrant. With regard to its primary purpose of giving us Jesus Christ, it is infallible and inerrant. With regard to its confession of the way of salvation, it is infallible and inerrant. It is the only rule of faith in practice. That has been the evangelical perspective for years.
Fundamentalists have suggested that maybe the Bible is also inerrant and infallible in science and in history. Of course, liberals—you’ve really only got these three groups today: You’ve got Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Liberals. Liberals would say that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible in any area. Fundamentalists would say it is infallible in theology, morality, science, and history. Evangelicals would say theology and morality. There is diversity, again, within the Body of Christ.
Very prayerfully and very thoughtfully over the years, I’ve come to Evangelicalism. I’m not a Fundamentalist and I’m not a Liberal. I have the unique ability to offend people on both sides. I think I could offer a credible apologetic for the Bible with regard to science and history, but I know with all my heart that the reason God gave us this book is faith and practice, theology and morality. That’s His purpose. And with regard to His purpose, I would proclaim to the world He’s infallible and inerrant. When I study the Bible and I look at it in the original languages in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic, whatever the case may be, I look at it contextually and I honor the literary genre that God is using. The message that is discerned is absolutely 100% binding on my life. I have to bend the knee.
With orthodoxy and orthopraxy, with theology and morality, with faith and practice, this is the whole deal. I live my life here and I teach it all week long and on Sundays. I hope that, as you look at science and the Bible, and as you look at science and the church, you’ll be loving. I hope you’ll treat with respect people who differ. I hope you will make the main thing the main thing and I hope you will focus on Jesus and take Jesus to the nations and to your neighborhood. I hope you’ll hold hands with all who love Jesus and serve Him with all your heart. And I hope you’ll try to get along as much as possible. Sometimes in a world of darkness, the light is offensive. Let’s look to the Lord with a word of prayer.