How far should we go in using science to defend the Scripture?
An answer to this question might logically begin by making it plain that the Bible is not a science textbook. You will not find the Periodic Table or any of the myriad of scientific formulas in Scripture. You will, however, find occasional references that are clearly scientific, such as Ecclesiates 1:7—the build up of moisture in clouds that rain down to earth in the form of water, creating streams and rivers that flow into the oceans, evaporating back into the atmosphere only to accumulate in clouds that precipitate once again. This cycle is known in meteorological terms as the hydrologic cycle. There is also Isaiah’s reference to the world being round (40:22), which is a geological fact, and Moses’ record of animals that God created according to their "kind", which helps us understand why offspring of cross-breeding are sterile, as in the case of the mule. Animal Husbandry confirms that propagation of wildlife happens naturally between animals of the same species. There are plenty of biblical references that find support in science. Christians will, and should whenever possible, appeal to scientific studies that confirm the Bible. How many of us have found an appeal to one, or all three, of the laws of thermodynamics when arguing against the theory of evolution and for a literal six-day creation?
While there are appropriate times to point out to the unbelieving world when the Bible’s scientific references find confirmation in many areas of science, especially archaeology, we don’t need science to defend the Bible. God’s Word was around long before science was taught in the hallowed halls of academia. The written word is all we need to battle for the minds of men and women (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). It is a living word, shaper than any double-edged sword, and able to penetrate into the heart of an individual and bring about change (Isaiah 55:11; Hebrews 4:12). You will find that fulfilled biblical prophecy, which is a mystery to the scientific mind, is one of the strongest evidences for the reliability of Scripture.
Someone might be wondering what to do about instances where the Bible and science might flatly contradict each other. In truth, this conflict is not actually between the Bible and science, but, as Josh McDowell states in his book, Josh McDowell Answers Five Tough Questions (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1991, p. 130) "between atheistic presuppositions of many scientists and the theistic assertions of the Bible." We need only to consider the major influences of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) on biology, Karl Marx (1818-1883) on political science and sociology, and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) on the social sciences, to see that MacDowell is right. The worldview of these men is staunchly atheistic and has no room at all for divine absolutes.
Taking MacDowell’s points a step further, we might argue in those instances where a scientific study conflicts with the Bible, that what is at odds with the Bible is more human observation than anything else. There is a difference between what the universe really is and how the human mind perceives it. The Bible teaches that the mind cannot make perfect observations of the world around it, because it has been severely disabled by the effects of the fall. Our minds can make only imperfect observations at best, which is why scientific research is constantly discovering better cures and methods, sometimes abandoning certain standard views and at other times embracing them, and is characterized by a fair amount of ambivalence toward its observations from experiments repeatedly conducted over time—science is not quite sure from one year to the next if caffeine is harmful or beneficial to the human body, or if Margarine and artificial sweeteners should replace butter and sugar. Science itself is not as absolute in its findings as we might think and, as we can see, is always changing.
Are there instances of true contradictions between the Bible and science? Aside from the example of biblical prophecy already mentioned, miracles would appear to be the only other instance that I know of. A miracle is an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs that may go against the laws of science as we know it. Jesus’ walk on water is contrary to the laws of gravity. His power to command the sea and the storm and his appearing and reappearing in locked rooms cannot be supported by science. But these are especially presented as miracles, to demonstrate Jesus as God and Lord over creation. Resurrection is completely contrary to certain scientific laws, but Jesus accomplished it and, in so doing, proved himself to be the resurrection and the life for all who follow him. Science may balk all it wants at the resurrection, but the empty tomb is an historical fact! The Bible is a divine book about faith, which the author of Hebrews defines as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (11:1)." There are just certain things about Christianity that one cannot verify by empirical study and must be received by faith. And in those instances where there may appear to be a discrepancy between the biblical account and some aspect of science, the Bible must prevail over science. Knowing what we know to be true about its ambivalent nature, science is likely to change its conclusions over time. What that happens, it usually catchrd up to the biblical record.
Dr. Bob Burrelli
Grace Bible Church