The original (rather long) article:

>The Teaching of Science, A Biblical Perspective

©2000 The Christian Institute

Lecture given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College, Gateshead on 21 September 2000

Contents:

Introduction

What is Science?

Naturalism

Practical Consequences

Biblical revelation of reality

Creation

Fall

Science in Schools

What can be done?

Biology, Chemistry, Physics

Relevance and importance of a proper approach

Introduction

We are interested to know what the Bible says about Science not because we wish to add a certain "religious flavour" to our Science lessons but because the Bible provides us with, as it were, spectacles through which the whole of reality can be sharply focussed. At a most fundamental level of thinking there are really just two alternative starting positions. One is characterised by the assumption that man can find out all that is true by careful enquiry; the other acknowledges the limitation of such endeavour and recognises the need for us to accept Divine help. One is the rationalist voice of autonomous humanism; the other is God-centred Christianity. It is important that we recognise this distinction right from the start. Much difference of opinion at a higher level can be traced back to this point. Those of us who are engaged in the struggle to show the superiority of a Creationist paradigm (world-view) over and against the prevailing orthodoxy of atheistic materialism and evolutionism in science, have been viciously attacked for adopting a "Bible-first" mentality by many of our opponents.

Let us state then right from the start that we reject the notion popularised, perhaps inadvertently, by Francis Bacon in the 17th century that there are "Two Books" (i.e. the Book of nature and the Scriptures) which may be mined independently for truth. Rather, we stand firm upon the bare proposition that God has spoken authoritatively and inerrantly in the pages of holy Scripture. However fragile, old-fashioned or naive this assertion may ostensibly appear, especially to an unbelieving, TV-drunk modern culture, we can be sure that it is as robust a foundation as it is possible to lay down and build upon. The words of the Apostle Paul on trial before Festus seem strangely relevant to our situation, "I am not mad, but speak the words of truth and reason" (Acts 26:25).

What is Science?

First we must identify with some precision what we mean when we talk about "Science". We shall find that popular notions of Science vary widely. For example, Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that Science is,

"1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

2. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation..."

Thus Science, as its Latin root suggests, is concerned with knowing. We may have heard the glib comment, "If you really want to know something, ask a scientist". This seems altogether in sympathy with a more up to date definition, reflecting perhaps culture"s shifting religious conviction which defines Science as,

"knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities."

This latter definition may at first glance seem acceptable enough. It duly acknowledges the limited scope of scientific enquiry to "the physical world" in its present "structure and behaviour". But, unlike the previous one, notice that there is no reference to God, truth in general or metaphysics. Implicit in the first, yet strangely absent from this second absent definition, is the acknowledgement that there must exist some general framework of thinking to make proper sense of sensory empirical data. Hence, the possibility of Scripture providing this normative role is explicitly denied.

Both Scripture and human philosophy affirm that in developing a body of knowledge and/or truth, we must inevitably assume something. No practitioner of Science can avoid this presumptive first step. For example, cosmologists assume a uniformity of matter and the laws of Physics when contemplating the distant galaxies and stars etc,. But why should such matter and the laws which govern its behaviour be the same everywhere? Thus, when the astronomer infers the existence of metals and certain gases in distant stars he is in fact assuming the unity of nature (i.e. that we inhabit a universe, not a multi-verse): something he cannot prove.

However, if, as Jesus clearly taught, the Bible really is the Word of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science will always agree with it. The form of knowledge to which it tends will be trustworthy and true. The ultimate absurdity of abandoning the Biblical framework of knowledge is the introduction of doubt into the universality of any scientific law.

Naturalism

Perhaps as a result of a general acceptance of Aquinas?s dualistic theory of knowledge and Bacon?s 'Two Books' approach, practitioners of Science over recent centuries have progressively developed the notion that scientific endeavour, and the theory that describes it, must proceed along lines of thought that are inherently 'naturalistic'. Thus today, schools, universities and TV documentaries present 'natural History' and 'natural Science'. When examined at a fundamental philosophical level, it emerges that the following assumptions have been subtly added to or implied in most contemporary notions of Science:

all that exists is hard matter (atoms and molecules)only 'natural physical processes' can be invoked as causes of all effects.

Practical Consequences

However well-intentioned the contemporary scientific fraternity in pursuing with such rigour 'natural science', it must be apparent that what we are left with is in fact 'methodological atheism' - an approach to Science which, by definition, precludes any mention of God or supernatural activity whatsoever. To be sure, we must seek explanations for 'present phenomena' in terms which are naturalistic. This is consistent with the Biblical revelation of God as a God of order (1Cor 14:33) But historical events may in fact have been wrought 'supernaturally' by the hand of God. Only brute pride and prejudice will explicitly deny this possibility.

The political and religious consequences for modern culture resulting from the uniform application of naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions in Science teaching are immense. The able Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, Phillip Johnson has keenly identified how a body of elite professionals have been remarkably influential in the shaping of the moral character of today's generation by this distinctive approach to Science.

But won't the integrity of 'Science' be threatened if we allow a divine foot in the door? Johnson, who has written extensively and with much helpful insight, has clearly shown a widening audience that defining scientific endeavour in such materialistic and naturalistic terms, contrary to popular opinion, actually stifles and cripples scientific progress. He rightly argues that the research process ought, with honesty and integrity, to pursue empirical evidence logically wherever it leads. But if naturalism is true, what place is there for such moral concepts as honesty and integrity? Perhaps it is not mere coincidence that there has been a rising trend of fraudulent Science in recent times .

Moreover, it can now readily be shown that there exists both physical laws and a substantial body of empirical data, especially the intrinsic irreducible complexity possessed by all living organisms which are incompatible with, or else fundamentally defy, a doctrinaire naturalistic explanation. Johnson and others have fought hard academically and politically. Presently, his 'Intelligent Design (ID)' group are urging the US Government and Legislature to wake up and realise the social and moral implications of adopting unquestioningly naturalistic scientism in the classroom. It remains to be seen how successful they will be. The recent machinations of the Kansas Board of Education show clearly that there exists a powerful body of ideological proponents who are keen to retain the falsehoods inherent in the present status quo.

Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the term 'Science'. However, though much ground has been lost over the past 200 years or so, it is heartening to read in the latest revision of the National Curriculum that Scientific Enquiry should, at Key Stage 4, include reference to the controversial character of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the limitations of scientific knowledge in certain inaccessible contexts .

Biblical revelation of reality

Johnson's charges are most important because the Bible calls us to recognise in all our thinking the totality of reality. This includes the unseen, spiritual realm as well as the material, spatial and temporal dimensions. St Paul explicitly warns us, 'See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col 2:8).

Scripture reliably informs us that an omnipotent, eternal and all-wise God supernaturally created the Universe (matter, space and time) ex nihilo (from nothing), presently superintends His creation; hears and answers prayer; directs legions of angels to do His will; moves in the hearts and minds of all men; turns slowly but surely the great wheels of providence; upholds all things by the power of His word and consigns to heaven and hell those who are respectively obedient or disobedient to His revealed will. This supreme Being is the great Architect, Creator and Sustainer of all and exists simultaneously within and without His creation . Despite the complete absence from the current mainstream Science national curriculum, He is, in the words of Francis Schaeffer, 'The God who is there'.

It is apparent then that Theology and not Physics or Mathematics that is properly 'Queen of the Sciences'. It is in this sense of the fullness of knowledge which God alone possesses that 'the science of God must be perfect' as our first definition plainly stated. Physics, as we shall see, is merely concerned only with a proper understanding of the normal workings of the material world. But the best physicists (e.g. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Brewster - to mention but a few) duly recognised the limitations of their undertakings and were happy to acknowledge the existence of God and the genius of His handiwork as they sought to fathom and explore it. Their determination to understand the mechanism of present operations within the universe by no means prevented them from a contemplation of a supernatural, divine act of creation in the past and the mystery of providence in the present.

A Biblical view of the world and universe requires us to believe that everything has been made for mankind who alone among living creatures possesses spiritual faculties enabling him to forge vital, personal fellowship with his Maker. Given that man's chief end in life is to know and glorify God, the whole of Creation must necessarily be perceived as a stage upon which he may realize this potential and fulfil this purpose. The material medium therefore ought to be recognised as a divine construct by which man, when truly guided and enlightened, may discover the great wisdom and power of God together with remarkable tokens of His kindness and love.

Mindful of these things, theologians have most helpfully identified the conceptual framework of Creation, Fall and Redemption in which thinking, and therefore teaching which is truly Biblical, must take place. No academic discipline can progress properly which ignores them. They are fundamental to the establishing of a Biblical view of reality not merely for any abstract reason, but because they are momentous historical events. The first two are especially pertinent to the cause of true Science.

Creation

The Bible at once confronts us with the God of Creation. Throughout the first chapter of Genesis there are a whole string of statements in which, as one has well said, 'God is the subject of the verb' . Historically, Christians have tended to struggle in their attempts to harmonise the plain/obvious sense of the Biblical narrative of Genesis 1 with 'the assured facts of modern Science'. Almost invariably, they have tried to hide their embarrassment of the explicit supernatural behind a smokescreen hermeneutic which requires a mythological interpretation of many of the early chapters. They typically inform us that the principal lesson we are to learn from the Genesis account is that nature somehow betrays the existence of God as we look at it in the right sort of way. While this may be true, we affirm that creation is something which God historically did. The distinction may seem trivial or unimportant but it is by this creative act that the credentials of God as the almighty and all-wise etc, are effectively established and communicated to us. A proper awareness of this show of Divine power inspires humility and awe-filled worship in all who are confronted by it.

Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (Psalm 33:8-9)

Christians know only too well the great value of such contemplation. When faced with great trials, like Job (38ff), they are strengthened in hope and comforted in death by such knowledge. As real historical events, such astounding creative accomplishments represent wonderful tokens of encouragement that the might and right of God's kingdom will at last prevail.

We make a great mistake however if we assume that such a view of Earth history is peculiarly religious and only valid for those who have faith. Indeed, so self-evident is the truth of Creation and so morally relevant its message that the Scriptures announce to us, 'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse' (Rom 1:20). By stark contrast, the prevailing notions of naturalism and atheism are condemned as intellectual suicide and folly (Ps 14:1; Rom 1:26). Coming as it does at the very beginning of the Bible, we may legitimately assume that the doctrine of Special Creation is foundational to the establishing of both true science and real piety within our land. Indeed, so important is the retention of this creative act in our minds that God has ordained one day in seven for us to remember it (Ex 20:11; Mk 2:20).

Fall

No sooner are we informed that this world is the result of ingenious, special (miraculous) creation than God records for us the sober fact of its subsequent fall and corruption. Sin entered human experience and God's subsequent curse of the world affected everything (Gen 3). Decay and death inevitably characterise our present physical existence. That which was made harmonious and beautiful in the beginning, is now tragically infected with a poison which secures its destruction. In the words of some past poet, man, the crowning glory of God's original creation, is now 'a magnificent wreck'. The full extent of the physical consequences of the fall on creation may never finally be known. But those of us engaged in the proclamation of true Science must reckon all that we find to be somehow affected by it. Two passages of Scripture (among several) which clearly allude to the Fall include:

Besides the obvious principle of decay bound up within the famous second law of thermodynamics, we may well consider invoking the historical fall event to explain effects such as lunar craters, certain pathological virus infections and various instances where nature now appears 'red in tooth and claw'.

Furthermore, if the Biblical record is to be trusted, we must acknowledge within our grand geophysical paradigm the historicity of a world-wide flood as outlined in Gen 6-10. If the Biblical narrative is secure and the listed genealogies (e.g. Gen 5; 1 Chro 1; Matt 1 and Lu 3) are substantially full, we must reckon that this global catastrophe took place in the relatively recent past. Its effects are everywhere abundantly apparent. Principal evidence is found in the fossil-laden sedimentary rocks, the extensive reserves of hydrocarbon fuels (coal, oil and gas) and the 'legendary' accounts of just such a great flood common to various population groups world-wide. The feasibility of maintaining an ark full of representative creatures for a year until the waters had sufficiently receded has been well documented by, among others, John Woodmorrappe . Much useful research has already been undertaken in recent years which confirms that speciation via 'micro-evolution' and variation within limits can happily account for the rapid re-population of the world and separation of human racial groupings such as we find today.

Science in Schools

(Biology, Chemistry and Physics)

In the light of all that has been said, it is surely necessary for us to proceed into the 21st century class-room with some caution. Modern technology which has greatly impacted our lives in countless ways provides the ordinary man in the street and his children whom we teach with considerable reason to suppose that their confidence in the proclamations of modern Science are well-founded. There is therefore an understandable tendency for pupils to admire and respect what they are persuasively told by popular media Science pundits. Science teachers who affirm Biblical authority must be constantly on guard. Flawed orthodoxy is fervently preached at the very highest level in colleges and universities throughout the land. The high priests of secular humanism wield a great deal of power and their influence is regrettably noticeable in the formal statements of the National Curriculum and School Examination Syllabuses. Textbooks are produced whose authors inevitably 'kow-tow' to the dictates of examining bodies and regrettably, most teachers in turn, blindly follow on unquestioningly.

A teacher who expresses ideas contrary to the prevailing secular world-view knows that he risks suspicion and scorn from both his students and his colleagues. Truly the fear of man is a great snare (Pr 29:25). But as challenging and as revolutionary as it may seem, Christian teachers must grasp this particular nettle if ever they are to make significant spiritual in-roads into the hearts and minds of today's youngsters and tomorrows generation of cultural transformers. Church leaders too must do their part. Apart from the mercy and grace of God, as long as Christianity is preached as a 'religious optional extra', all we can hope to secure in the lives of the children under our charge is a weak, existential piety in which the historical Christ must be squeezed and trimmed to fit. We urgently need thinking Christians who understand Scientism's subtle message and mistakes to speak out with clarity, conviction and courage against it. The same classroom practitioners must, in its place, be prepared to express without compromise the integrity and infallibility of the Biblical historical narrative however loud and disagreeable the objection. Such ambassadors must strive to be 'as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves' (Matt 10:16).

What can be done?

Until or unless the Science/Faith problem is properly tackled at a higher level (i.e. Government and University), the likelihood is that present curriculum constraints will substantially apply for the foreseeable future. Teachers must therefore do all that they can to ensure that pupils, parents and fellow colleagues are reminded frequently that all is not what it seems when popular so-called scientific dogma presents itself before them.

In the meantime, the same Science teachers may care to try some or all of the following:

• Remind classes of great Scientists from the past who have believed in God and the Bible. This can be done easily enough by displaying pictures of them together with brief quotes indicating their spiritual allegiance and a summary of what in particular they are famous for. This simple exercise alone can be staggeringly effective in assuring students that a simple trust in the Bible as the word of God is not tantamount to intellectual suicide - a popular media contention. Most are astonished to find out how many past worthies were committed to Biblical authority. Henry Morris, for example, lists over forty Scientific disciplines and a further twenty-six notable inventions or discoveries which were established or substantially developed by Bible-believing Scientists .
• Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data. We shall look at a few examples from each of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in due course. Remember, 'The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him'. (Pr 18:17)
• Display a variety of topical data which is not readily explained by current orthodox science. E.g. presence of information in DNA; lack of Solar neutrinos; rapid decay of Geo-magnetic field; recessional velocity of the Moon; lack of intermediate fossils to mention but a few! Posters can readily be constructed from cut and pasted copies of old 'Creation ex Nihilo' magazines which are brightly coloured and always helpfully illustrated.
• Provide summary background reading and further information for all who express an interest in the controversy. There is a vast array of useful internet help and information freely available. I have found Ian Campbell's Creation Matters booklet most helpful with both staff and sixth form students .
• Circulate periodically to all staff and interested pupils anti-scientism news sheets (e.g. The Sceptic ) with appropriate comments. Being factually based they are both thought-provoking and good stimulants to follow-up discussion. We must never undermine the therapeutic value of truth. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (Jn 8:32)
• Make helpful literature and video resources available in the School library and actively encourage its perusal. Catalogues advertising such specialist items are available from at least two UK based organisations .
• Organise talks by specialist Scientists who are able to provide authoritative pronouncements in favour of the Biblical world-view whilst providing a fair but critical appraisal of naturalism. There is a need for someone to draw up a list of suitable personnel together with their academic credentials and contact details in order for Schools nationally to take advantage of such visits.
• Set up a Science Critical Forum in which the relevant issues in the context of topical items of science news are discussed within the School. The claim of 'religious neutrality' everywhere vaunted by the secular dominated mass media will be shown to be spurious. Students and (teachers) must be shown instead that what is served up as Science for popular consumption is frequently riddled with subtle atheistic propaganda the fruit of which is the paralysis of true spiritual thinking and Christian action.

It remains for us to examine a few notable examples of how naturalism has infected the National Curriculum in each of the three principal areas of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. In doing so we shall try to provide a measure of suggestion and practical advice for those involved at the chalk-face.

Biology