Galileo, who remained a loyal Catholic to the end of his life, makes his position clear in a letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany:
[In] St. Augustine we read: "If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there."
This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us.
Galileo did not suggest that his discoveries contradicted the Bible, but that science had offered a refinement to a proper understanding. Projects like this book are motivated by the belief that we need similar guidance today, particularly when interpreting the first chapters of Genesis.
Donald MacKay offers a healthy perspective on scientific involvement with religion:
Obviously a surface meaning of many passages could be tested, for example, against archaeological discoveries, and the meaning of others can be enriched by scientific and historical knowledge. But I want to suggest that the primary function of scientific enquiry in such fields is neither to verify nor to add to the inspired picture, but to help us in eliminating improper ways of reading it. To pursue the metaphor, I think the scientific data God gives us can sometimes serve as his way of warning us when we are standing too close to the picture, at the wrong angle, or with the wrong expectations, to be able to see the inspired pattern he means it to convey to us.
We suggest that Darwin's theory of evolution, now that it has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt by science, offers the same sort of help in understanding the Genesis creation story as Galileo's work helped his generation to better understand the psalmist's references to the mobility of the earth.
Science and religion relate (and don't relate) in many ways, as we have seen. Certainly being independent of each other is common and should be used as the default position. When it is established that there is indeed meaningful interaction, this can be negative or positive, and even both at the same time.
In the Galileo case we all too often assume that "science won and religion lost," but that is an absurd conclusion, especially as Galileo was speaking for an influential group of Catholic astronomers working to reform their Church. The conflict was between two different groups within the Catholic Church. Culturally, however, the Church lost in the sense that it was embarrassed and held up to ridicule for its decision, unfairly in the opinion of many scholars. But the Church won in the sense that Galileo's position was eventually validated—by Christian scientists—and the Church moved away from an erroneous interpretation of those Bible verses suggesting that the earth was stationary.
Today, as Christians wrestle with evolution, we see the same dynamics. Many Christians are ridiculed by the secular world and by the more scientifically educated wing of Christianity because of their opposition to Darwin. Many insist on a particular literalist interpretation of a few Bible verses that is not actually consistent with the original Hebrew and close their minds to evolution. This, of course, is a highly negative interaction. But at the same time, as the evidence for evolution becomes ever more compelling, many Christians are embracing alternative interpretations of Genesis and moving away from error.
Although science and religion certainly overlap in some cases, neither is an exhaustive source of truth capable of swallowing up the other. There are still questions that only science can address, and religion should simply concede on those points. And science cannot answer questions about life's purpose or the existence of God. Scientists in the public square should refrain from pontificating on these topics as if suddenly science has become a religion. We also have to keep in mind that science makes mistakes—sometimes significant ones—but science is self-correcting over time, as history shows so clearly.
The historical lesson to be learned here is that Christians should be wary of using the Bible as a scientific text. Every generation has had pundits insisting that the science of its time was taught by the Bible. So Christians confidently wedded their faith to their science only to have it experience a painful divorce when science moved on to new ideas. The Faith of many Christians today is wedded to pre-Darwinian and even pre-geologic science of the nineteenth century, and that marriage is now in serious trouble.
The task of developing dramatic new understandings of Scripture in response to the advance of science is a most challenging undertaking and cannot be taken lightly.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In