What Does The Bible Say About Science?
Video Timeline
WELCOME
00:00 - Welcome with Matt & Will
TALK with Will Sopwith
05:18 - What Does The Bible Say About Science? - Will Sopwith
06:50 - What Is Science?
08:11 - Where Does Science Come From?
09:56 - How Has Science Been Shaped By The Bible?
15:03 - Does Science Disagree With The Bible?
19:01 - Where Does Science Have A Problem With The Bible?
25:30 - The Example Of DNA
WORSHIP
32:06 - All Creatures Of Our God with Lyrics
CONVERSATION STREET with Matt & Will
35:29 - Conversation Street
35:58 - Has Science Been A Struggle Or Liberation For Your Faith?
40:19 - What Has Changed Over The Years To Cause This Separation Between Science And Faith?
46:23 - What Do Christian And Non-Christian Scientists Believe?
50:40 - What Is DNA
CLOSING WORSHIP
58:30 - When I Survey with Lyrics
Podcast:
What does the Bible say about Science?
— Will Sopwith
Is the Bible in conflict with science? Do you have to choose between the Bible and science? These are very real questions for many. Some people assume that modern science has somehow disproved God, or made the Bible irrelevant. What do you think?
I have here a Bible. It's got an awful lot of pages, which are wafer thin. The Bible says a lot of things. And science is a huge field. So, I have to say up front that I don't have the time here to fully argue any case. I'm not an expert in every aspect of the debate either. What I do hope to do is give you some food for thought today, spark your interest, maybe help you question any assumptions that you may have.
My name is Will Sopwith. I have a degree in biochemistry, a master's in parasitology, a PhD in molecular genetics and a Master's in Public Health. I currently work in cancer research. If I'm to share my CV, you might conclude that I'm a scientist. But that doesn't really define me. I'm also officially middle aged, a husband, a dad, a cyclist, a supporter of LFC and a believer in Jesus. So let's get into it.
What Is Science?
It's important to find the question to scope out what we're talking about. So first of all, what is Science? It's a very general term for a huge field of research, perspective, and practice. Science is an approach to knowledge that involve
Observing
Developing a hypothesis based on those observations
Investigating your hypothesis systematically, usually through empirical measurement.
It usually involves also applying some rigorous skepticism to the observations you've made to check that your interpretation is not just you, trying to fit the facts to your own prejudice, or perhaps narrow view. Other people then criticise your work to make it better.
So an example. I observe that my hair first thing in the morning is even more messed up than usual. My hypothesis is that the cat messes it up while I'm sleeping. To test my hypothesis, I stay awake all night to see the cat doesn't appear, but my hair is as messy as ever. My face also now looks awful. I develop skepticism about my cat theory, and set out to test another explanation. This in a nutshell, is a scientific method.
So Where Does Science Come From?
Where did these ideas and way of approaching the world originate? What started what we think of as modern science? Would you be surprised to know that it was the Bible that largely shaped it? Now that's a big claim, and maybe too big for our time here, but I'll try to explain. The Bible is certainly all for it. It positively encourages investigation and learning in places.
In Daniel 1 we have the story of 4 youths. God gave them skill in old literature and wisdom. Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
But when I say that the Bible has shaped science, I don't mean you can use it as a textbook, although, some people try to. There were some interesting verses like one in Job 26:7 which describes the earth hanging over nothing like a sphere in space. But at the time the thought was that the Earth was held on God's back or a giant turtle or whatever the particular culture was. But really, electrical engineering? Not covered much. You want to design a new immunotherapy for cancer? Guidance you'll get from scripture's fairly limited.
How has science been shaped by the Bible?
Well, the developments of science more or less really got going in the 17th century (1600s) in Western Europe. Before then, most learning and thought depended on logic and theory. It was more philosophy than experiment. And there are many people in ancient times that are now thought of as scientists, mostly mathematicians and astronomers. But there was very little in the way of science practiced.
These were isolated cases. Prevailing culture was either that God and nature were one, that's the Greek philosopher Aristotle, or that the physical world was an illusion entirely, and meaning was only to be found within your own consciousness, like in Hindu, Indian and Chinese culture, or that humanity was just a cog in a much larger Cosmos without any purpose at all. None of these views really inspired any investigation or measurement of the world around them.
So although there have been plenty of thinkers and observers in the world that'd gone before, there'd be no development of science, or a scientific movement or method. The idea of laws governing nature was not really previously considered. But if you believe God created it all, that idea of a law governing it begins to make sense.
Why Western Europe in the 17th century?
Why was that the time when isolated ideas suddenly started developing into what we now know as the fields of physics, biology, chemistry, and others? When observations about the world around us started to inspire efforts to find explanations, what else was going on?
Well, this was the time, interestingly, when the Bible was not only translated into the common language of Europeans, but the printing press made it widely available and affordable. In an absolutely fascinating book, Vishal Mangalwadi, an Indian from a Hindu background explores this idea in a lot more depth than I can do now, but I really recommend reading if you're interested. Vishal argues that as people began to access the Bible, they realised that God was all about revelation. He wasn't a mysterious spirit that remained unknowable, as most religions worshipped. God wanted to be discovered.
God can be known
There was almost a spiritual duty to investigate God, and on all He'd made. God could be known. God can be known. That was totally radical, and in my mind, it still is. The ultimate expression of this is Jesus as the visible representation of the invisible God, also described as the light of the world in John's Gospel.
People matter
The other revelation that the Bible brought was that people mattered. They weren't the playthings of the gods, mere mortals that had to appease the whims of the superior being through sacrifice and other things. God made people as a reflection of His own nature. God delights in people. He also commands that we as people should love other people.
Bible inspired learning and research
With these two understandings in the Bible, that God reveals Himself and His purposes, and that people matter, it became the church that spearheaded learning. Starting schools and universities at a time when most people considered learning was only for the privileged few, Christians saw it was a good thing for all God's children.
It was Christian men and women that began scientific discovery, considering that God could be known, and that it was their responsibility as believers to discover God in His handiwork. It was largely Bible believing people that created medical societies and missions, because they believed humanity was worth fighting for, and God equipped us with knowledge in order to do good.
So, the Bible encourages learning and research. The whole scientific movement gained momentum through Bible-believing Christians. What is the problem?
Does Science Disagree With The Bible?
Well, it's a paradigm thing. A paradigm is a philosophical or theoretical framework, including a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns. You could simplify this to mean a distinct way of looking at the world. We've already seen that the science paradigm deals with the observable, measurable world, and fueled really by repeatable measurement. The paradigm of the Bible is the account of a person who is beyond the natural - a super natural God interacting with the natural world. The Bible's paradigm is fueled by faith, and revelation, primarily through God's word.
Now, obviously, these are two very different viewpoints. The paradigm that we have, or use, totally shapes our interpretation of what we see, what we observe and what we experience. There is also a limit to which these two paradigms can agree. It's very difficult to see the world through a lens of faith in God's purpose and power, and at the same time, demand that everything that's real, must be proved, and even more than that, measured, or else, you don't believe it's real.
It can also be challenging to see the world through the lens of explainable, natural laws, and at the same time, believe in a dimension where those laws are flouted, and the supernatural happens, like a person dying and coming back to life with no apparent human intervention. This is where that conflict between Bible and science comes in.
The Wonder Goal Analogy
One of the main barriers to this meeting of perspectives or paradigms is the dependence of science on empirical measurement. An analogy might be that of a wonder goal scored in football. The kind of one off bit of brilliance that you'd find hard to believe happened unless you'd seen it. The sort of goal, that if you replicated the exact same crowd, players, opposition, positioning, ball type, you could probably never achieve again in quite the same way.
Now, in the absence of a recording, science would say, that goal is theoretically possible. People can head the ball, people can kick the ball, defenders can fail to intercept headers, but we haven't been able to repeat the observation ie. we've never seen another goal like it, despite trying to reconstruct it. So it was probably a bit of a kooky result and very unlikely to be real. Due to science's logical conclusion, a lack of measurable evidence would suggest the goal described is actually scientifically impossible and quite possibly didn't happen at all. Therefore, it was a fantasy, a myth, made up, only believed by gullible people. Those who were there might even start referring to it as a miracle goal.
Two key areas of difference
So the problem you see with measurement is that if you weren't there, if you don't trust the eyewitnesses, your paradigm of measurement does not allow you to stretch outside. Because of this, I think there are two main areas where science has developed a problem with the God of the Bible, and Christians have become hostile to science. These are the origins of the earth, and the nature of what it is to be human.
The Origins Of The Earth
The Bible says,
It says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God is the Creator. His creation includes things that are visible, observable in four dimensional space, but also things that are not.
On the other hand, science would say we have no verifiable account of the start of the universe. We can't consider a supernatural being because it's outside our paradigm. So, we need to find another explanation.
Now we've discovered a load of measurable, repeatable mechanisms that theoretically, could have resulted in an expanding multitude of diverse particulate matter that we call The Universe. We've mathematically modelled a process that does not flout the natural doors that our view of the world is limited by, but we have had to update those laws to accommodate our theory. There is more to explain and understand about the whole origins, but we're confident that we will eventually explain it all quite rationally through testing these theories in greater and greater detail.
So you get a lot of science thrown at it to try and explain what the Bible says was created.
What does it mean to be human?
So, again we've already seen that the paradigm of the Bible, is that people were created by God, made in God's image, ie. they were special compared to all other life, and they're loved by God. But the Bible also describes that people's intent is not always pure or right, what the Bible calls sin, and that not living according to the pattern Jesus lays out in his teaching can get a hold over us. In fact, sin is the central human problem for which Jesus is the answer.
I don't think you'll find many people that don't recognise some element of good and bad in people's behaviour, or recognise an overarching moral code.
What Does Science Say?
Well, science would say that the world is a mechanism of objective forces and processes and all life has arisen by chance, with humans being just another animal only different from other species by their complexity. Evolution's values are neutral. It doesn't inform right or wrong and it doesn't create right or wrong, it just is. This view makes the idea that people should behave any different from any other social creature a little bit meaningless. Morality has no place in such a system. Theft and murder could be classed as natural responses to people's primal urge to survive and dominate for the sake of their own family, their own genetic legacy.
So you see the Bible's talk of sin, a general concepts of right and wrong, of the need to address morally corrupt behaviour can be dismissed as unscientific. The idea of a righteous God providing moral leadership, embedding a conscience within our very makeup as humans, also becomes meaningless. If sin is a made up social construct then the need for a saviour is also rubbish. The idea of needing to say sorry, to anyone, doesn't easily fit in the science paradigm, let alone to a God we don't even believe in. So you can see that quite quickly the whole narrative of Jesus is irrelevant in a purely scientific paradigm.
What Do You Think?
Does the evidence stack up? If you were to take all the available observations as a scientist, consider all the evidence, would you conclude that anything goes? Is taking any moral stance is meaningless in a logical scheme of things? Why do you feel an almost physical revulsion when you hear of a particularly twisted crime against say, an innocent child? Why do you expect to be treated with fairness by others, even by complete strangers? Why do self-centred words and actions spoil your relationships? And why does making up after an argument make you feel so good?
The Limitations Of Paradigms
Actually, the paradigm of science can be very limiting. It seems to offer an alternative set of views that don't require God, but quite quickly runs into territory, which doesn't make sense if you're to take those scientific perspectives to their logical conclusion. In the end, there's not a great deal of hope, in a purely scientific view of humanity.
So for many, the response is to begin to look for answers or purpose elsewhere, for instance, in the Bible. For others, they try to find answers within that scientific paradigm. They stretch it as far as it will go, hypothesising the societal benefit of having a moral code. I've met a professor studying the evolutionary benefit of belief in God without actually any belief in God, but trying to find a scientific mechanism which might explain some of the things we observe in our society. For me personally, if the evidence doesn't fit, you need to change your paradigm.
The Example of DNA
I want to finish with one example of this apparent paradigm battle in the area of evolution because actually, there are plenty of scientific facts that sit easily in both boxes. Again, no time to do justice to a huge area of research. I'm just putting this out there to provoke thought.
My example is DNA because it's incredible. It's constructed from a molecular alphabet of just four letters, they're related but different chemicals. The infinitely large number of combinations that can be written, give rise to every single living thing on this planet. In all its incredible diversity, there are just four letters. The molecular machinery that copies DNA, and that allow cell division, and basically growth, which is a hallmark of every living thing, is estimated to be around one mistake made in that machinery in every 10 billion nucleotides read. That's like taking one step out of line in a continuous walk along a straight line. It's the equivalent of walking 330 times around the whole earth. It's pretty accurate.
Now, thanks to scientific discovery, DNA sequences can be read like a book, each one of us having a completely unique signature. As we get better and better at reading sequences, we see more and more complexity as to how this very simple design of four letters in DNA gives rise not only to life as different as a jellyfish is from an elephant, but also how little changes in the code can enable all living things to adapt. So an insect becomes better and better over many generations at pollinating a particular shaped flower, or a bear develops over many generations thicker and whiter fur to adapt to life in the snow, rather than jungle.
How might the paradigms of science and the Bible interpret this knowledge and these observations?
Well, please remember, it's a massive oversimplification, but science is a paradigm that depends on measurable things, and excludes the anything beyond the natural, so DNA gets slotted into that worldview. Here is a potential mechanism that could explain the diversity that we see without the need for any intelligent creative force. But the challenge is that DNA mutation ends in disaster. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it generally results in the loss of genetic information, not the gaining of new information and the emergence of a better version of a creature. The only way the larger theory of evolution makes sense is, if there is aeons and aeons of time available. Even then, it is a stretch to get that amount of diversity purely through a mechanism of adaptations from mutation.
The Bible paradigm would say, God created it. And if I may say so, God, what a fantastically elegant and efficient design to ensure not only massive diversity of life, but flourishing life as it continues to adapt to new environments.
Being stuck in a paradigm tends to lead people to try and explain away rather than actually look at the evidence and ask questions. Many Christians do this, trying to find excuses for fossils, etc, because they think it disproves God. Science does it all the time, trying to justify what survival benefit an appreciation of beauty or helping a stranger on the other side of the world might bring. We find it so hard to stretch outside our paradigm. So, we tried to explain away what we can't explain. In the end, and just as those first Christian pioneers of science set out to do, scientific discovery often just shines a brighter light on the absolute wonder of creation.
In Conclusion…
This is the science-faith space that I inhabit with great joy. I feel like there's so much more to say and I've not utterly lost you, but I want to finish with a verse about the very essence of God. And that is love. 1 Corinthians 13:8 says,
As for prophecies, as for tongues, as for learning, as for theories, as for textbooks, they will pass away, they will cease. As for knowledge, it will pass away. But love goes on!
CONVERSATION STREET
With: Matt Edmundson & Will Sopwith
What is Conversation Street?
Conversation Street is part of our live stream, where the hosts (in this case, Matt & Will) chat through Will’s talk and answer questions that were sent in through the live stream. To watch the conversation now, click here.
Matt: Has Science Been A Struggle Or A Liberation For Your Faith?
Will Sopwith: Totally liberating. Throughout my career, people are always surprised to find out you're a Christian, but a scientist too. They see them as polar opposites, which is why I was fascinated read about all those early scientists, so many of which were Christians. So many of them were actually doing it because of the Bible.
I never found it an issue. There are obviously lots of theories put forward, evolution being the big one. I'm a biologist. I know far less about the physics and the chemistry, but in biology, evolution is the thing. We've found something that means we don't have to look at a creator, and so as a scientist it's always sparked my interest. When you look at the evidence for evolution and see how it stacks up, the deeper you get into it, even very learned evolutionists would say that there's lots of gaps. There is a faith that with continued studying, we will find all the answers and will have a nice watertight case disproving any God or creator. However, with each layer that's peeled off, there's more mystery to explain, there's more incredible chance. So I've always found that quite inspiring.
I actually stopped entering into debate about it. I did a debate back at my old university, about three or four years ago. I was just trying to encourage the students. There was a rabbi there, a church of England vicar, an Imam, and there was me. And then all these kind of professors of evolution. It was a degree course on evolution. My closing statement to them was just don't get stuck in this paradigm that's so unscientific. Don't just discount all that because you don't want to believe it. Look into it, keep questioning. For me as a scientist, that's what I've carried on doing. I question my faith, I question the science. I've never got to that point of unbelief in either one in a sense. I can see merits in both arguments.
I think we all feel very insecure. So I think many Christians who maybe don't understand the science feel like they have to disprove it or undercut it somehow. I've never felt that though. In the large scheme of things, they answer very different things and look at different the two for different reasons. I've never felt the need out of any kind of insecurity either in my faith or as a scientist to argue the case to the elimination of the other, but some people do that. If you're not involved in either sphere, it's easy to think, oh these are diametrically opposed. But I don't see that. I don't see that being the case.
What Has Changed Over The Years To Cause This Separation Between Science And Faith?
Will Sopwith: I think people have forgotten the origins, to be honest. The book I mentioned, is only a theory and I have not looked into that in any more more depth to know whether that's watertight. There were plenty of scientists that weren't Christians early on. But people have forgotten the origins. I think there's people who are just trying to find a reason to ignore God. Jesus is challenging. Christ is challenging. A resurrection from the dead? You have to respond to that. You have to respond to the forgiveness of sins. If there's a way to ignore that, I think our human condition is probably to avoid challenges sometimes.
So science sort of becomes cloaked in that a bit. People may feel that this is something that can finally put the nail in the coffin of having to respond to the challenge of Jesus as written and revealed in the Bible. I wonder whether there's something in just our human nature that is looking for a reason not to have to address that. People can dismiss Jesus quite quickly without really understanding it by saying, "science has disproved it", but have they ever looked into that? Have they ever really considered Jesus? It's a very convenient way to just ignore him.
I wonder whether it's partly that, but a lot of it is probably ignorance on both sides. People don't really understand the science. They take people's word for it, and perhaps they never really looked into faith either.
Do You Think Christians Are Threatened By Science?
Will Sopwith: I think people are, yeah. For me, it shows quite a narrow faith that if it is based upon whether you can prove it, measure it, etc. I'd probably suggest that you need to find some wider influences. When people get very narrow, it just becomes an argument about the proof of the existence of God, which is kind of a fruitless debate. But people do get very focused on that. They have to prove that God exists or else.
So many Christians have kind of have tried to use the scientific approach to prove God. I wonder though, if your faith in God is only focused on that very narrow, "we prove God exists or prove he doesn't exist" lens, then that for me is quite a narrow basis on which to have faith. My faith in Jesus is much more built on a load of experience, understanding and logic. if you read the Bible and look at what it says about the human condition, it's very rational. There's a rational need for salvation, there's a rational explanation of where evil comes from. I think that's where the threat comes because if we can't dismiss science, then somehow it's a threat to the reality of God, which I don't buy, to be honest.
What Do Christian And Non-Christian Scientists Think?
Will Sopwith: Those that don't believe, mostly have not considered it, or perhaps have encountered the Bible and God in such a way that they take a very defensive position against faith. Maybe they've explored a career in science and it drives them. There's this assumed disconnect, because maybe the Sunday school they went to, or their experience of faith said that all science was rubbish etc. They just distance themselves without really following on with it. I think for those scientists that are Christians, the second point I was making about the revelation of God in the Bible is a massive one. You will find people who are really motivated by wanting to make the world better.
In purely evolutionary thought, there's not a lot of reason for that to be. It's about tribe, about looking after your own, protecting your own genetic material effectively, wanting to extend your family to dominance, wanting to help mankind in general. As I said, people have put forward various theories about why that's of evolutionary benefit. On the whole though, there's not a lot of that in science.
So a lot of scientists who are Christians are motivated by their love of God, and God's love of people to then explore using science, how to better people, and a lot of that is in health and medical research which is kind of the field I'm most familiar with. It's interesting that the ones that are very opposed to the idea of God, and particularly the idea of Jesus, they get a lot more het up about it, if you like.
Christians, who are scientists, are just like, what's the problem? Why is there even a debate? Quite often you'll find them not really wanting to debate because it's like, this is a debate based upon a wrong assumption from the start. It's not really going to get us anywhere, which was very much my experience going back to my old University. Again, it's when you've got a very fixed paradigm, you want to explain things away. There is a threat from faith. And there is a threat from morality, actually. There's no very clear biological mechanism for morality. This makes you feel like you need to explain this away to keep your paradigm secure. My experience is that scientists are more likely to be against any kind of faith than Christians who are scientists. They just think, what's the issue here?
What Is DNA?
Will Sopwith: So DNA has got these two strands in every cell. This is the alphabet that I was talking about. It corresponds, so A corresponds with T, G corresponds with C, and you've got these two strands. When a cell divides, those two strands separate, and the cell makes a new copy on both sides. So basically, you've got two identical copies of what you had before. That then separates into a new cell, two new cells. If you think about a baby developing in the womb, that's what's going on, all the time. Over time those cells begin to diversify into brain, into foot, into heart into whatever. That is the mechanism of growth that underpins every single living thing. It's the same alphabet in those two strands from a bacterium to an elephant. It's exactly the same model.
Now, there's only a portion of those strands that actually mean anything. So you can actually translate it into a word, that's what genes are. You translate it into something that means something and makes something in a cell or in a body. There's a load of stuff between which was always thought of as junk. Part of the thinking around evolutionary development is we've got all this spare stuff. Evolution says it can call on some of this junk, and bring an infinite recombination. However, when those two things separate, if one of the copies is slightly different, it might form a slightly different thing from what it was supposed to. That's basically mutation. As we go on learning through the Human Genome Project and others, all that supposedly junk DNA is actually absolutely vital. It's about the way it's structured in the cell to make sure that genes are copied right and read right by a cell. It can begin to turn off and on genes. Although it doesn't really code anything, all that stuff between the genes is really, really important.
So you can see, if you start mutating, the likelihood of getting enough mutations to create a new viable living thing, rather than just destroy it, is very small. A lot of genetic diseases are very debilitating, they don't create a new super being. They create something that's, not able to function in quite the same way. But the whole theory of evolution, and DNA is based upon the fact these mutations are beneficial, and you that you can get enough of them at the same time to start creating completely new life forms over aeons and aeons of time.
Actually, as people are looking more and more into DNA, all this stuff is useful. It's not just the genes, it's all the other stuff as well. You begin to question that whole process of mutation.
For me, if you were gonna design a system that allowed the diversity of life and the movement of animals and living things into new environments and adaptation, well, DNA is just brilliant. It leads me to think, God, you're amazing.
When I was doing my degree, every lecture was just another wow. It really caused worship in me. That was my response going to university. And that was years ago. We knew a fraction of what we do now. The whole exploration of life is brilliant. It's incredibly rewarding.
More Bible Verses About Science
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:1-4)
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7)
He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness. (Job 26:10)
Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? (Job 38:16)
He sits above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (Isaiah 40:22)
It is he who made the earth by power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)