What happens when Scripture and science disagree?
The Dual Revelation Theory argues that God has revealed Himself to mankind in two primary ways: Special Revelation and General Revelation. Special Revelation is a specific message from God to a certain person or group of people. It includes things like Scripture, dreams, visions, and angelic messengers. General Revelation is the way God reveals Himself to all people, everywhere. It includes things like reason, conscience, and nature.
The Dual Revelation Theory states that when properly understood, Special Revelation and General Revelation will never disagree.
But what happens when they do?
For example, one branch of science says that the universe came about by chance, and evolved over a period of billions of years. But one part of the Bible says that God created the universe in six days. Clearly, both of these ideas cannot be correct.
Most Christians argue that when General Revelation and Special Revelation disagree, the Bible should have priority. The Bible trumps all other forms of revelation. The Bible should “win the argument.”
And yet, over the past 400 years, it has been the Bible that has lost the battle, almost every single time. William Lane Craig, a great Christian thinker, writer, and apologist, said this:
The whole point of the double revelation theory was supposed to prove that these two revelations must agree; if they do not appear to do so, it must be because we are misinterpreting one or both. But the Bible always seems to come out on the short end.
Is he right? When Galileo contradicted the church teaching that the sun revolved around the earth, the church eventually adjusted their teaching to fit science. When the church used the Bible to defend Colonialism, slavery, and the subjugation of women, the church eventually had to back down in the face of reason, logic, and science.
In recent years, the battles between science and Scripture involve the issues of evolution, women as pastors, and homosexuality. If history is any guide, it seems likely that science will win the day on these issues as well.
But what does this mean? Does it mean, as William Lane Craig suggests, that the Bible comes out on the short end? That Scripture is compromised? That the Bible is wrong after all?
Hardly.
Those who argue as William Lane Craig does above, that Scripture is always the side that loses, have simply failed to make the distinction between “What the Bible says” and “What people say the Bible says.”
What people claim the Bible teaches might be vastly different than what it actually teaches. And so if, in the face of scientific advancement, the church is forced to change its teachings in regard to the earth’s place in the universe, a certain group of people as being sub-human, the role of women, or how the universe came into existence, it is not that the Bible has “lost” and gotten the short end of the stick.
Quite the contrary, it could also be argued that as a result of General Revelation, the church has now come to a greater understanding and appreciation for what is written in Scripture. Scripture is not slighted in such situations; it is illuminated, amplified, and explained.
This does not mean that we blindly accept everything science says. That approach is just as bad as refusing to listen to science at all. The best approach is that there must be some give and take, teaching and learning, between General Revelation and Special Revelation. I will write about how this works tomorrow.
Jeremy,
I think that the trouble with science is that just like theology, the rules and data can be manipulated by those with an agenda.
We see this in the Old earth science. All old earth science is based on a series of presuppositions that are not testable or provable. For example, all the radiation tests used to test the age of an object assume levels of radiation millions of years ago that can neve be observed or substantiated.
I guess that my point is that God is unchanging, and He did not make any mistakes in revealing Himself to mankind, whether through special or general revelation. So I would say that there is a way to understand both that is consistant and non contradictory.
That being said, I do not really see this as achievable for flawed human beings. This would require a perfect understanding of the Bible, and a perfect understanding of science, neither of which are possible for any one of us. We will always have junk science based on personal and group agendas, just like we will always have junk theology based on personal and group agendas.
Just some thoughts. I do not think that this should preclude attempting to understand science and theology. I do, however, think that a real understanding of the limits of our mental capacities should preclude much of the dogma that exists in both science and theology.
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
FedEx,
You are exactly right. The data of both Scripture and Nature can be manipulated to say whatever the scientist/theologian wants it to day.
That is one reason we need each other, to help keep the brakes applied on each other when we start going off track.
You did a good job with a difficult topic.
What some people seem to forget is that not all Bible interpreters have or do agree on what the Bible says on these and other topics. I clearly remember being told in church that the Bible clearly teaches the inferiority of black people. But not everyone thought that the Bible says that, and now very few people believe that.
Surety in knowing exactly what the Bible says on any and all topics is foolishness, if past experience is a reliable indicator. But that’s o.k. Jesus is my rabbi. I’m trying to follow Jesus. I doubt I’ve got everything figured out. But I follow Jesus. Jesus is the Word. I place all my trust in Jesus, in nothing or no one else. I worship Jesus – not a book, not any book. The Bible is helpful and instructive, but Jesus is the Word.
“The Bible is helpful and instructive, but Jesus is the Word.”
I love that line. Can I use it? 🙂
Sure!
Great point, Sam. I hope to bring this truth out more and more as we work our way through my seminary class notes. Keep my feet to the fire!
I think Galileo is a bad example because people just assumed the sun revolved around the earth. It was never scientifically “proven”. And the bible never said the sn revolved around the earth either, the Catholic church just “proof texted”. Evolutin however was MADE to find a natural reason for the world to exist w/o God. My passion over the last couple of years is to read all the creation books and to educate myself on the major flaws in evolution, which there are MANY. Man has not scientifically proved Evolution at all. Forget the geology part (which was “invented” by Lowell in 1820), Darwin read Lowell’s book, and figured living things had to work the same way. This space is too small to make a proper defense, but I like the Peanut Butter test. For 150 years, millions of people have tested daily that peanuts will not turn int anything else but peanuts. 🙂 We have NEVER repeated any of the evolutionary theories..not even once. It’s just more bearable than being accountable to a living God. Recently, Richard Dawkins, the atheist poster boy, said that it has been proven that life HAD to come to this earth quickly and instantaneously, so he said ALIENS planted us here! They would rather believe in aliens than God!
Anthony,
That is a great point about Galileo. But then, maybe it was scientific “fact” by the best science of the day until the invention of the telescope? I don’t know.
Dawkins really said that about aliens? Do you remember where? I would love to read that.
The bible talks about aliens existing in the old testament there was even alien abductions of the whole nation of israel on more than one occasion by them i suspect thats where Richard Dawkins got the idea from.lol brentnz
Oh, great job on the article. These types of articles usually have a lot of hate mail. The last time I posted an article just “hinting” at a young earth, I got lambasted by people I didn’t even know read my blog! Evolution is definitely a religion in its own right.
I love this as added fodder to annoy unbelievers and biblical literalists.The unbeliever says creation in 6 days? Crazy! The unbelieving scientist ( physics) says 15 billion years proven. They are both right. The believing,G-d, scientist admits it and explains the math E=mc2. ( see http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx). The believing scientist assumming intellectual integrity is receptive to the idea that if his scence contradicts the bible, either he does not understand or he has made a mistake. The unbelieving scientist,atheist, says the bible is wrong, (i.e. evolution is a fact, nothing made everything, etc.), but really is mad at the G-d he does not believe in. His empirical posture is not de riguer as it is an informal fallacy- extrapolating a whole from a part. It must be very painful,the poor guy is trying so hard. Not so the biblical literalist ( fideist- i believe it because I believe it ” and I am right in my heart” Elihu( see Job). They can be be observed in their natual setting, TBN where they speak many stupid things, which does not help put Christianity(Christ) in a good light. Would that they should hold their tongue, oy,…mein Gott! So to recapitulate a little trigometric differential calculus and and the first Chap. of Genesis/age of creation timing solved. now for the rest of the bible. PS. if anyone would like a few dozen pages of trig/diff calculus, I would be glad to,…hello, hello,……………….. hello,…
Science hasn’t proven JACK about the age of the earth. Basically, Lowell pulled numbers out of thin air, so they calibrate their research to those numbers. What HAS been proven, is that the speed of light decreases every year. And it’s been decreasing by a lot over the past 5 years. I bet you didn’t learn that in Evolution 101.
Jeremy,
re. “When the church used the Bible to defend Colonialism, slavery, and the subjugation of women, the church eventually had to back down in the face of reason, logic, and science.”
Um. The church had to back down in the face of other parts of the church — Christians who knew God better. The opposition to 18th-century forms of slavery was overwhelmingly Christian, and outside of the territory formerly known as Christendom, slavery still thrives virtually unchecked today. The opposition to colonialism was also overwhelmingly Christian until Marx developed a Christian heresy that kinda ran away with that piece of the pie. To this day, out on the sharp end, you’ll find a large proportion of the folks opposing subjugation of women are Christian. It’s very popular here to oppose prostitution in Mozambique, but when you start checking to see who is actually putting boots on the ground, you’ll find Christian missionaries more often than not.
True, a thing most don’t reaize is since the US is based on laws and elected officials, John quincy Adams knew he had to wait until the party that Jefferson “invented” (there was only one party..the federalists, but the constitution wasn’t against more than 2 parties)
Jefferson created a more liberal party, but the southern states were only in existence because of slavery. There were 4x the slaves than voting non-slaves. Since the founding fathers believed each state is sovereign, John Quincy Adams had to wait 20 years before anti-slavery was a national law. Since the south was using their population of slaves to increase their electoral votes (hence making in completely legal), they had to say a slave was 1/5 a human. 5 slaves votes equal one regular vote. All the Christians were against slavery of course, but the south didn’t have many Christians (unlike today), so instead of “forcing” Congress to make a law (like Obama did) he had to pray and wait. The Civil War was ultimately about money. With slavery illegal, the South was going to lose BEAUCOUP amounts of money, so they sent their young men to die to keep their money..just like the country is doing now. Oh, and it was Christians who told the cult during the Salem witch trials of the errors of their ways. You never hear THAT story.
Tim,
You are right, and I realized this too the day after I wrote this post, and hinted at it in my next post.
I do, however, think that there was some “give and take” between science and theology, or at least between social/economic/political science and theology for theology to make the changes that it did.
re1. Barry Setterfield has hypothesized the speed of light is slowing down, he is possibly right but it is NOT proven,2. all I need is the law writ on my heart via imago deo to have empathy and feel a slaves pain, etc. Using the bible or the koran etc. to justify violence is so obviously aberrant it has no defense other than I choose sin and my rationalization. I don’t need the bible or reason to tell me said salvery, jihad is wrong. Who is Lowell? Jack is not a measureable quantity.Science has many facts concerning the age of the earth, the jury is still out. “Time is a stubbornly persistant illusion. A Einstein.
I heard that time was slowing down too. It’s been years since I read much about it though.
“If I had known I would have been a plumber.” A Einstein upon observing the facts.
I liked your take on this. I think science helps us understand what scripture means to a point (or more accurately, corrects our incorrect interpretations), but there comes a point where the scriptures can’t bend. Such is the case with evolution, I believe.
Loren,
I think I asked Anthony in an earlier post, but would be curious to hear your opinion also: What do you think of people who believe in theistic evolution?
Loren and all, is it not a comfort to know that the bible gives essential certitude. Evolution is a false religion requiring faith in spite of the evidence, not so Christ and Him risen.
There will always be debate over science versus faith these two are often in conflict and i believe that science took a wrong turn in that rather than believe in God they would rather use there intelligence to deny the existance of one..That was not always the case in Isaac Newtons day most of the scientists believed in God and used there thinking to prove that God indeed does exist as the universe has been created in an orderly manner therefore needs a creater and someone to maintain it It seems the more we know the less we understand but i think the evidence is starting to mount that we indeed do have a incredible planet that has been purpose designed for us and the eco systems that are in place to maintain the environment it seems hard to imagine that it was a random event that created the world we live in.
In saying that it still comes down to a personal belief you either believe or you dont and that is a matter of faith. brentnz