Making an Extra Stitch: Science vs. Scripture? Creation vs. Evolution?

 

How many of us have suffered the shock of childhood faith encountering evolution? A simple belief in creation suddenly smacks up against a theory that all things can be explained by evolutionary development. We become ashamed of our faith in God’s intentional creation for this theory seems to account for human life through the gradual change and development of species via a series of random mutations, worked out through the survival of the fittest over billions of years. It can seem that no super-intending by God was needed. This all just happened. The belief in creation seems childish and unnecessary. Suddenly it can seem that science opposes Scripture as if one has to choose creation or evolution, faith or reason. 

 

But what if this is a false dichotomy? An unnecessary contradiction? What if a six-day creation a few thousand years ago or unguided development over billions of years are not the only options?

 

Let’s take a moment to consider the crucial difference between physics and metaphysics. 

 

In its most basic, broadest definition, physics explores the mechanics of what exists. It explains the properties and phenomena of how things are in the cosmos. As such, physics considers the questions of “how” and “what.” How does gravity behave? What causes the Earth to spin?  

 

Meta is a Greek preposition that means “above.” In this sense, meta-physics means doing physics from above. In other words, it entails asking the “why” questions about “what” we observe. Why is there something and not nothing? Why did these forces that keep the earth spinning come into being? Metaphysics considers questions of meaning. 

 

When we talk about the hard sciences, we are not talking about metaphysics. Chemistry, biology and the specific physics of matter and energy do not address questions of meaning or purpose. Rather, these each consider the nature and function of the physical reality around us. That’s science. It has many strengths and also profound limits. 

 

However, when we talk about philosophy and theology, we think about metaphysics. All the “why” questions and the meaning statements come to bear. Theology may employ the beautiful insights of science about the “what” of this complex universe. After all, noticing creation leads to doxology, that is, praising God. But theology’s focus is on the purpose and goal of the creation being observed. For example, theology’s task is not to map the human genome, but it may draw important implications of meaning from the ordered intricacy science uncovered in our genes.

 

Physics (i.e. science) and metaphysics (i.e. theology) properly raise and answer different questions. But, of course, the two interact. After all, we think and feel on many levels. But when one discipline purports to take the place of the other, much is lost.

 

Scientism occurs when the physics of science begins to claim ultimate priority for its way of exploring the universe. In that case, scientists assume to answer the questions of meaning or lack of meaning in what exists. They claim metaphysical territory. Such scientism can offer safe harbor to those who would rather there not be a God to whom we are accountable. The human impulse to be our own gods finds a platform in a metaphysics that there is no other intent or purpose in life beyond what we give it. 

 

Similarly, believers in Scripture can create an unnecessary war with science if we insist that passages such as Genesis 1 and 2 can only be read like a contemporary science textbook. Then, for example, we expend enormous effort trying to explain, by today’s science, how daylight could be on the earth before the sun was created. But Scripture speaks with language higher and more enduring than any particular culture’s way of expression. After all, scientific theories are always updating or upheaving, but the meaning of the earth’s intentional creation by God speaks truthfully and transformationally across cultures and centuries. 

 

With all that said, having the metaphysical worldview of Scripture actually makes us better scientists. Believing in a purposeful, ordered and intentional creation ignites inquiry about how it all works. Trusting in a Creator also frees us to innovate because we are not enslaved to whatever theories are current. We can question the dogmas of scientism the way brave believers once questioned the assumed truth that the sun revolves around the Earth. Therefore, we can, as good scientists, pursue true physics. We can joyfully inquire about how the world actually works. For example, we can ask questions about literal six-day creationism, unguided macroevolution, and any positions in between. 

 

On the one hand, if we grant that Genesis 1 can still be true while speaking primarily about metaphysics, then we are free to ask questions about the physics of the world. The earth appears to be older than a few thousand years. Light comes from stars millions of light years away. The continents appear to have once been connected but are now separated. Spontaneous generation, organisms popping into being, does not seem to be occurring now. Did it once? 

 

On the other hand, we are also free to ask questions about evolution. For we know that it is profoundly not unscientific to ask, “If all this developed through random mutations surviving through survival of the fittest over long periods of time, where is the fossil evidence for the millions of transitional species there must have been?” Or “How does the rising development of complexity in species fit with the second law of thermodynamics, the reality of entropy that things tend towards decay?” Or “How do we account for the ‘irreducible complexity’ in such things as sight and blood coagulation if they developed mutation by mutation over time?” Or “Why do species that supposedly developed in different epochs appear all together in the Cambrian fossils?”  

 

If we grant that the purview of science is exploring the nature of what exists, not the meaning of why things exist, we can see that the existence of a Creator is not unscientific at all. In fact, the more we know about the cosmos, the more its complexity, unity and harmonious interaction all shout out the presence of a Designer. It is not unreasonable to assert a Creator. Rather, it is the better explanation for what we observe.

 

We need to understand the distinction between physics and metaphysics to face the reality of God and to explore openly the way God may have created.

 

To further contemplate the beauty of creation and the interaction between faith and science, you might enjoy downloading the app from Ken Boa Museum of Created Beauty or check out kenboa.org. You might also like the series of videos called "Wonder: The Harmony of Faith and Science" narrated by Jonathan Roumie.