Any Christian, engaged with questions about origins, is often confronted with conflicting positions on the issue. What do we do when faith and science clash? How do we deal with questions for which we have no adequate answers? How can we approach unsolved problems that are raised by the natural sciences and yet credibly maintain what Scripture affirms?
All these are legitimate questions that deserve to be addressed. At the same time, these questions do not lend themselves to easy solutions and will not be solved by superficial answers. This article will briefly point out some aspects that can help us to affirm biblical truths despite some open questions.1
Let us remind ourselves that unresolved questions are a challenge to others besides believing Christians. Even atheistic scientists face unresolved questions. Within a purely naturalistic explanation of the beginning of life on this earth one also encounters a number of unsolved problems that cannot be explained satisfactorily with an evolutionary model. However, those who have a high view of Scripture face significant challenges from the natural sciences when it comes to the issue of creation. What will be the most helpful approach to face those challenges while upholding the biblical account of Creation? Without claiming to be exhaustive, I submit the following ideas:
Distinguish between facts and their interpretation
It is important to distinguish between facts and the interpretation of those facts, for interpretation is often ideologically distorted. Disagreement between creation and evolution is not over facts, but over the interpretation of facts. What holds true for facts in the natural sciences is equally valid for the interpretation of Scripture. One has to distinguish carefully between what is actually written in Scripture and what is often deduced from Scripture in extrabiblical traditions. This requires a solid knowledge of the biblical languages and theology. Equally important is a substantial knowledge of the natural sciences. For both sides it is true that not all interpretations do justice to the facts, even though some interpretations have gained a status that is almost uncontested.
Allow for a creative tension between Scripture and science
Scientific facts that seem to contradict biblical statements should not be ignored or denied. Neither should they be colored or glossed over. It is not acceptable to support biblical truth by coloring facts. Neither do we have the right to color our interpretation of Scripture in order to adapt it to the scientific level of the day. To allow for a “creative tension” indicates that we are called to search for solutions that are faithful to Scripture and impartial in their scientific investigation.
Resist the temptation of superficial answers
To search for solutions that are at once faithful to Scripture and impartial in their scientific investigation implies that we have to resist the temptation to provide shallow answers and superficial explanations, which do not do justice to very complex and multifaceted issues. Such answers do not satisfy and will in the end do a disservice to the church and to biblical faith.
Be honest
In order to search for such answers we need to deal with every difficulty with honesty. Honesty implies that we acknowledge a difficulty and do not try to obscure, dodge, or evade it. Honesty always wins in the long run. An honest person has an open mindset and is willing to learn. It is a mindset that is receptive toward the message and content of what is being studied. Furthermore, honesty aims at the motives with which the interpreter and scientist approaches the biblical text and the field of science andalso includes the willingness to use the proper methods of investigation. Everyone has to face the following questions: Are my motives in harmony with the Word of God? Are my methods appropriate for the subject matter of science and also of Scripture? God is “pleased with integrity” (1 Chron. 29:17, NIV). If we are really convinced that the Bible is the Word of God and that it can be trusted in what it affirms, we are far better off to wait for an honest solution to a perplexing difficulty than to submit to a solution that is evasive or unsatisfactory. Honesty turns away from all lies. It includes faithfulness to God that results in an independence from naturalistic presuppositions that run counter to God’s Word, no matter how widespread and popular such science might be. Is it really appropriate to employ methods with presuppositions that are based on atheistic premises for the explanation of the Word of God and for the origin of life that ultimately are subversive to the subject matter of the Bible? While we will not share atheistic premises of naturalistic science, honesty calls us to be fair and respectful to those who work on those premises.
Be patient
Complex problems require untiring patience and an indomitable determination to deal with every difficulty we meet. We have to be determined that no matter how much time, study, and hard thinking it may require, we will patiently work on finding a solution. As Bible-believing Christians we have to recognize that especially in the scientific investigation of creation only limited resources and manpower are available to deal with enormous questions and challenges. The number of scientists who believe in biblical Creation is small (but growing), and therefore the results are still limited. It will be helpful to investigate and study some of those problems in our own laboratories, to conduct our own field studies in order to collect primary data, to do our own research, etc. This endeavor is costly and needs to be done systematically,2but over time this type of research can help findreliable answers that are scientifically sound and yet are faithful to the biblical view of Creation and other insights.3 If some diffi culties persistently defy even our best efforts to solve them, we should not get discouraged. It is interesting to note that one characteristic of the faithful believers at the end of history is to live patiently. “Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus” (Rev. 14:12, NAS). The call to perseverance is made in Revelation 14 in the context of clear references to Creation (v. 7). Part of our perseverance is to be able to live with open questions, yet to be faithful to God’s Word. For God’s Word has proved to be reliable and trustworthy.
Practice humility
In science as well as in theology, humility is one of the rarest, yet most important, characteristics and presuppositions of those engaged in the study of both. Humility calls for a willingness and modesty to submit one’s beliefs to a higher authority. Humility expresses the unassuming insight that God and His Word are greater than our human reason and our current understanding of science.4 Every difficulty we encounter in the relationship between Bible and science should be dealt with using that humility that becomes all persons of such limited knowledge as we are. Recognizing the limitations of our mind and our knowledge, we should not suppose that there is no solution just because we have not found one yet.
Recognize the limited nature of scientific knowledge
In dealing with difficulties that are posed by science to Scripture we have to acknowledge that in our explanation of the distant past we do not have all the information we would like to have in order to solve a difficult question. At the same time we have to recognize that our scientific knowledge of things is very limited. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford University, has ably pointed out that no science can explain everything.5This is especially the case when we have to deal with primordial issues. We may learn from archaeology that the absence of evidence is no evidence for the absence of certain things. Our limited knowledge of those things becomes evident already in a question that God raised with Job: “‘Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have understanding’ ” (Job 38:4, NAS). It is with the awareness of those human limitations and boundaries that we investigate God’s Creation scientifically, always being conscious that our knowledge is restricted.
Even though scientific explanations at times might seem omnipotent, we have to recognize that scientific theories are influenced by philosophical presuppositions and that scientific knowledge can be revised and changed. Science builds on empirical knowledge, and this means that new data can question scientific theories. Where this is no longer allowed, science has mutated to an ideology. Rather than adapting biblical ideas to the latest outlook in science, Scripture should have a unique input on science by asking questions that could function as a source of inspiration in developing new strategies of scientific research. Wolfhart Pannenberg’s remarkable words deserve to be taken seriously: “The theologian must not be too quick to adapt theological ideas and language to the latest outlook in the sciences, especially where such adaptation requires substantial readjustment of traditional doctrine. The theological vision of the world can also function as a challenge to science and as a source of inspiration in developing new strategies of research.”6 Such a new perspective will be open to the possibility that God intervenes.
Be open to the fact that God intervenes
In dealing with problems that interface between faith and science, biblical theologians and believing scientists have to be open to the fact that God intervenes supernaturally and that such a supernatural intervention cannot be explained with normal natural processes as we know them through the sciences. To be open to God’s supernatural intervention also encompasses a spiritual approach to difficulties where every difficulty is dealt with prayerfully. Prayer is no substitute for diligent and hard work. But on the other hand, we should never underestimate what God can do to our understanding of Scripture and nature through prayer.
Learn from love
Lastly, we can learn from love. Love has convincing evidence that leads to conviction. But love does not have a 100 percent mathematical or scientific proof for its existence. After all, there is more to love than scientific evidence. Love is a supernatural gift. Therefore, love is able to endure. And love is able to live with open questions. While we now may see dimly, nevertheless we do see. And we “may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:18, 19, NASB; emphasis added). Thus, while we do understand what God has revealed to us, it is our hope that we “will come to understand fully” (2 Cor. 1:14, NIV). In other words, love is the epistemological basis for knowing and trusting. Love is the basis of our faith, and it is the foundation of our hope (it “hopes all things” [1 Cor. 13:7, NASB]). “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment” (Phil. 1:9, NAS; emphasis added).
While there are many unresolved questions from a creationist perspective, this does not invalidate the position of biblical Creation. Let’s learn from love that we can live with open questions while knowing that not everything is up in the air because God has sufficiently revealed Himself as Creator of this world. Furthermore, we should be aware of the fact that a good many tough questions are unresolved for the hypothesis of evolution as well, and it seems as if some of those difficult questions for evolution do not diminish but grow more vexed as time goes on.
1 For a fuller discussion of this issue, see Frank M. Hasel, “Living with Confidence Despite Some Open Questions: Upholding the Biblical Truth of Creation Amidst Theological Pluralism,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 1 (2003):229–54, and other articles in this issue.
2 The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a Geoscience Research Institute and supports such efforts in various ways. Geoscience Research Institute, 11060 Campus St., Loma Linda, CA 92350 U.S.A. See also their Web site, www.grisda.org.
3 Regarding Ellen G. White and her understanding of creation, see Frank M. Hasel, “Ellen G. White and Creationism: How to Deal with Her Statements on Creation and Evolution–Implications and Prospects,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 229–44.
4 “When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM” (Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1892], 109f).
5 Cf. John Lennox, Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben? Eine kritische Analyse moderner Denkvoraussetzungen (Wuppertal: Brockhaus Verlag, 2002), 18–26.
6 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Theology and Philosophy in Interaction with Science: A Response to the Message of Pope John Paul II on the Occasion of the Newton Tricentennial in 1987,” in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne, eds. John
Paul II on Science and Religion: Reflections on the New View From Rome (Notre Dame, IN: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), p. 78. Unfortunately Pannenberg himself does not follow his own advice and seems to advocate the readjustment of theological vision and the reassessment of doctrinal affirmations of the past in the light of modern scientific developments as presented by the theory of evolution of life (Ibid., 78, 79).
