Integrating Science and Theology

August 31, 2009
Copyright © 1999, 2000 Ronald W. Leigh
Scripture quotations are from the NIV and NASB

A. Terms

Definition of "science":  Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws concerned with the physical world and its phenomena, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.  (adapted from Webster)

Definition of "natural science":  Any of the sciences (such as astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, biology, etc.) that pertain to the various forms of matter and energy and their interrelations and transformations, or with objectively measurable phenomena.  (adapted from Webster)

The term "theology" is used in this paper to refer to biblical theology as approximated in the historic doctrines of conservative, Protestant Christianity.

Note:  In this paper we do not attempt to show why we consider Christian teachings true.  That is the task of apologetics and is beyond the scope of this paper.  Here we assume their truth and try to lay a foundation for the task of integration.

B.  Asking the Wrong Question

— "Modern science has disproved the Bible."
— "There is an inherent conflict between science and the Bible."
— "If you believe the Bible, you can't be a good scientist."

Even though all three of these statements are false, they remind us of the fact that many Christians have a problem with science; and many scientists have a problem with Christianity.  That problem arises from the following question:

— "Do science and the Bible agree?"

But this is the wrong question to ask.  Stated in this form it is not a valid question.  It is based on the assumption that the Bible is merely a product of man and is therefore on the same level as science, as shown below.

However, if we place God in the picture and recognize that he is the ultimate author of the Bible as well as the creator of all nature, then the diagram changes.  We now have things in proper perspective with science and the Bible on different levels.

So the proper questions are:

From level 2:
  Question: Do nature and the Bible agree?
    Answer: Yes!  They are both from the same source – God.

From level 4:
  Question: Do science and theology agree?
    Answer: Sometimes!

The job of the Christian is to integrate knowledge obtained from both of God's books.  Any world view that is built solely on one of these books and ignores the other is incomplete.

On the one hand, the secular philosopher or scientist who ignores theology will only be able to guess at the answers to many questions.  The metaphysician who ignores theology can only speculate about the existence of spirits.  The cosmologist who ignores theology can only theorize about the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe.  The anthropologist and zoologist who ignore theology can only conjecture about man's uniqueness and his place in relation to the animals (leading some to go so far as to suggest "equal" rights for apes.)  The psychologist and psychiatrist who ignore theology will be blind to one of the most significant reasons for negative human behavior and will be unable to properly explain Christian love.  And all will be deaf to the message of the gospel, just because it is not found in their "book."

On the other hand, if the church ignores or discredits science, it does so to its own detriment.  The church’s spokesmen, both public (preachers, radio “pastors,” authors, etc.) and private (ordinary witnessing believers), will expose their lack of knowledge and thus discredit themselves, giving their listeners an excuse to discount their presentations of the gospel.  And the church’s youth, if they are not shown an honest attempt to integrate theology and science, will not know how to deal with the false but appealing views of the world.  These are the youth who will go off to college and “lose” their faith.  An integrated faith is much easier to hang on to than a cloistered faith.

C.  What the Bible Says about Science

Although the Bible makes a number of statements which relate to various sciences, it does not discuss “science” or “the sciences” as we define them today.  But it does contain passages which refer to knowledge in general, and  since the word “science” means knowledge, we can draw some implications from these passages and apply them to science.

1.  True Knowledge — A Commendation

Breadth of knowledge is commended in the Bible.  Consider Moses, who was educated in all the wisdom (learning) of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22).  And Solomon, who had a measureless breadth of understanding which he received from God (1 Kings 4:29-34).

Also consider Daniel and his three colleagues.  When these four were selected by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, they were chosen because they showed “aptitude for every kind of learning” and were “well informed” (Daniel 1:4)  At the beginning of their three year training program they demonstrated that they had dietary knowledge superior to the king’s (verses 5-16).  Then God gave them “knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning" (verse 17).  And at the end of their training program,

In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.  (Daniel 1:20)

The phrase “all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom” would seem to include the teachers of Daniel and his colleagues.  Recalling the strength and accomplishments of the Babylonian empire, it is reasonable to conclude that these four, with God’s help, were the leading philosophers, linguists, historians, scientists, and engineers of that time.  God had given them this knowledge just as surely as he gave Daniel insight into the king’s dreams (Daniel 2:17-28).  This is a very high commendation of knowledge, and it reminds us that knowledge should be considered a gift from God.  How unfortunate when Christians neglect or even snub knowledge and education.

2.  False Knowledge — A Warning

Not everything that is called “knowledge” is good.  There is false knowledge which Paul warned Timothy about:

Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.  (1 Timothy 6:20-21)

Paul also warned the Colossians against “fine-sounding arguments” (Colossians 2:4) and told them to

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.  (Colossians 2:8)

And he told the Corinthians that

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.  (2 Corinthians 10:5)

In the above passages we are admonished to shun false knowledge, deceptive philosophy, and arguments contrary to the knowledge of God because they depend on human tradition and the world’s principles.  Instead, we are to build up a knowledge which “depends on” Christ and is “obedient to Christ.”  Certainly this is a call for the integration of theology and all knowledge, with Christ, who said “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), at the center as illustrated below.

Rather than being against knowledge, the Christian should strive for knowledge, that is, true knowledge which is both critical and properly integrated.

3.  The Christian Attitude Toward Science

Historically, Christianity has served as a foundation and backbone of science.  While science has flourished in Christian cultures, it has failed to flourish in certain other cultures, and for good reason.  One aspect of the Christian world view that has encouraged scientific investigation is the fact that Christianity views the world as a physical reality governed by divinely established law, rather than by chance or divine caprice.

This law is seen in the very first chapter of the Bible, where the times and seasons are ruled by heavenly bodies and kinds reproduce according to their kinds.  In fact, one very significant emphasis of the first chapter of Genesis is that God brought order out of chaos in the six days of creation.  The principal contrast in this chapter is the chaos at the beginning and the present order, approved by God, at the end of the sixth day.  It is this orderliness which is foundational for science.  Science is impossible without it.  In fact, science can be thought of as the discovery of God's natural laws.

In contrast, a world view which includes divine intervention at every turn discourages science.  Where everything is explained in terms of divine moods, there can be no explanations based on nature itself.  The same would be true for a world governed by chance.  In such a world nothing is repeatable, nothing is predictable.  No experiments yield reliable results.

So it is not surprising that throughout the history of science, many Christians have been involved.  They maintain their beliefs in God and the Bible at the same time they apply the tools of their field of science.  Today is no different, Christianity encourages scientific inquiry of all kinds.  There can be nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge of both nature and the Bible, and especially from an increased integration of these two fields of knowledge.

4.  The nature and extent of the curse

Nature was cursed because of the fall of man (Genesis 3:14-19).  And Paul taught that nature is now subjected to vanity or frustration, under bondage to decay, and will be liberated (Romans 8:20-21).  Many interpret this to mean that the way nature works now (being under a curse) is different than the way nature worked before the fall, and different than it will work at some time in the future.  But what is the extent of this curse?

How much difference is there?  Certainly the curse cannot mean that nature works totally differently now.  For example, the ground which brought forth vegetation before the fall (Genesis 1:12-13) still brings forth vegetation after the fall but also brings forth thorns and thistles (Genesis 3:18).  When we consider the Genesis passages, it appears that the changes are few in number, since most of what is described in Genesis 1 (before the fall) still works the same.  (See the section entitled “Did the Fall Change Physics?” in Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, Navpress, 1998)  However, when we consider Paul’s teachings in Romans 8, we wonder if the curse is more widespread.

It is difficult to say with certainty the precise extent of the curse.  Nevertheless, we can conclude one thing.  Nature, even in its cursed state, still indicates the existence, power, and glory of God, for Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20 apply to nature under the curse!

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.  (Psalm 19:1)

… 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  (Romans 1:20)

D.  Principles of Integration

When there is agreement between science and theology on a particular topic, of course, little integration is needed.  The information from both sources can be accepted at face value and the details from one source will complement the details from the other.  (Of course, there is the possibility that both sources are being interpreted incorrectly, which would result in false agreement.)

Also, when science makes assertions on a certain topic but theology is silent (or vice versa), again no integration is needed and the assertions can be accepted.  The scientific assertions are accepted, of course, with the usual caution because again there is the possibility that the assertions are incorrect.  (The limitations of science mentioned in a later section should always be kept in mind.)

The problem comes when theology asserts one idea or set of ideas and science asserts contradictory ideas.  In that case, how should we approach integration?  Integrating science and theology is not an easy task, but the following principles will help.

1.  Remember that integration is not compromise

When a person compromises, both he and his “opponent” give up something in order to accomplish a certain goal.  However, with proper integration there should be no need to give up anything that is a valid part of either theology or science.  Integration reevaluates both assertions, paying careful attention to the strength of their supporting evidence, and seeks to harmonize the assertions without compromise.

Rather than envisioning integration between a Christian theologian and a non-Christian scientist, envision that both the theologian and the scientist are Christians.  Or, better yet, the theologian and the scientist are the same person.

By the way, integration between science and theology is not the only integration required of Christians. Theologians must do a lot of integrating to form their theology.  For example, they must integrate the teachings of James and Paul on the place of works in salvation.  Similarly, scientists must do a lot of integrating to produce self consistent views of the universe.

2.  Recognize the Bible as the final authority.

As mentioned earlier (in the section “What the Bible says about science”) all of our knowledge must be based on Christ.  Also, we find from Christ’s story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:27-31) that the written revelation carries even more weight than direct experience.  Certainly this points to the final authority of the Bible.

In addition, consider two differences between the Bible and nature.  First, the Bible is verbal, so less interpretation is needed.  Of course, the Bible requires some interpretation.  However, the difference between interpreting the Bible (which is full of assertions) and nature (which waits for its observers to make assertions about it) should be obvious.  With nature, we have to start from scratch.  We have to observe, construct hypotheses, organize experiments and gather additional data, interpret the data, revise the hypotheses, etc.  But with the Bible, many assertions are already there, and the basic assertions are clearly stated many times.

Second, the Bible is complete, so “all the data is in.”  Rather than a constant flood of new discoveries to account for, all the evidence is contained in a single volume.   Of course, certain fields (such as archeology, or the study of ancient languages) will offer new insights from time to time, but again there is an obvious contrast between theology and science when we consider the completeness of the data.

So when your theology comes directly from clear and explicit biblical assertions (taking the entire Bible into account), and your science appears to indicate something contradictory, consider your theology correct and keep working on your science.

3.  Recognize that the Bible is relatively silent on many areas.

The Bible’s message is very sharply focused.  For example, it is not intended to instruct us about all aspects of astronomy, even though it contains some statements related to astronomy.  And the same could be said for every other natural science.

4.  Reexamine both areas.

Be careful not to equate your theology with the Bible.  When a contradiction between theology and science comes to light, we expect both the theologian and the scientist to reexamine their assertions.  In some cases, the theologian will be correct and the scientist incorrect.  In other cases the scientist will be correct and the theologian incorrect.  And in some cases both will be incorrect.

5.  Don’t attempt to evaluate whole disciplines

Occasionally you will hear someone bad-mouth an entire discipline.  For example, a convinced Christian might claim that you can’t be both a Christian and a psychologist, or that all scientists are subconsciously hiding from God.  On the other hand, a convinced geologist might claim that you can’t be both a geologist and a Christian, or might suggest that all religious people are weak and need a crutch.  Such sweeping condemnations are provincial and do more harm than good.

One discipline that Christians tend to disparage is philosophy.  Some Christians even use Colossians 2:8 (quoted above) to support their dislike of philosophy.  However, it is clear that this verse is warning, not against all philosophy, but against that philosophy which is built on human tradition and the basic principles of this world.  This is the philosophy which Paul labels hollow and deceptive.  In contrast, a philosophy built on Christ is legitimate and satisfying.

6.  Use careful scholarship.

As in any field of inquiry, establish your working definitions, be aware of your own and others’ assumptions, and check your sources.  And then, when you state your conclusions, be careful not to go beyond the evidence.

A word of caution about assumptions:  Sometimes you will hear the opinion expressed that the Christian believer adopts one set of assumptions, and the scientist adopts another, as though this is the way it should be.  In particular, you might hear it said that the believer assumes that there is a God, there are spirits, people have souls, and there are real miracles, while the scientist assumes that there is no God, no spirits, no souls, and no miracles.  But why assume the conclusion before examining the evidence?  It is wrong for both the scientist and the theologian to make such assumptions.  Rather, both should begin with the neutral assumption (that is, perhaps there is a God, etc.) and then base his conclusion on a careful examination of the evidence from both nature and the Bible.

7.  Remember that both scientists and theologians have similar human traits.

Scientists and theologians do not approach their work differently.  Both must be careful students of their fields, so they will share certain mental outlooks and work habits.

First, both the scientist and the theologian will be aware of their assumptions and limitations.  Both will be especially cautious of making unfounded assumptions.  As illustrated above, careful inquiry begins, not with naturalistic assumptions, nor supernaturalistic assumptions, but with neutrality.  Then observations and evaluations can be made in a process of true science which arrives at genuine conclusions derived from the evidence, not from predetermined outcomes.

Also, both scientist and theologian will be careful to search out all the facts, and will avoid jumping to conclusions.  And when it is time to draw conclusions, both scientist and theologian will be careful not to go beyond the evidence.  They will both have the integrity to publicly express their views for the critical review of their colleagues.  They will publish their findings and learn from the criticisms of others.

Remember that both science and theology are done by people.  No individual can be completely objective, even though objectivity is always the goal.  Everyone makes mistakes of memory and judgment.  Everyone carries both conceptual and emotional baggage to any endeavor.  Everyone has a certain amount of pride and wants to be correct; no one likes to be proven wrong.  To see others alter their views is always more satisfying than having to alter your own views.  And if this were not enough, don't forget about the fear of change, professional jealousy, the need to save face, greed, the need for control, hidden agendas (often from others and often from oneself), laziness, impatience, the desire to be praised, to say nothing of the need for funding and career insecurities.  All of these weaknesses affect both the theologian and the scientist.  With factors like these in the picture, it is no wonder that the truth is often missed.

8.  Remember that faith is not opposed to science or reason.  Both scientists and theologians use a lot of faith.

Some might say that the theologian exercises faith, while the scientist uses reason.  Perhaps this is because the theologian talks a lot about faith.  But such a dichotomy is far from the truth.

It is helpful at this point to make a distinction between saving faith and general faith.  On the one hand, a person's saving faith is based on his realization that he is a lost sinner and that Christ died for his sins.  It is the act of trusting in Christ, and it is through faith that God graciously saves that person (Ephesians 2:8-9).  On the other hand, there is general faith, which everyone uses.  It is the trust that we all place every day in ourselves, others, and the things around us.

Now, consider the false notion that faith is opposed to reason.  This notion is false both for saving faith and general faith.  Neither saving faith nor general faith is opposed to reason.  Rather, both types of faith build on reason.  Remember that faith always has an object.  Whether the individual is trusting in Christ as savior, or trusting in a boat to keep him afloat, he trusts because there are good reasons to trust – he understands certain things about his situation and how that object of faith can help.  Thus faith, rather than setting reason aside, requires reason.  So the dichotomy which places faith in opposition to reason is a false dichotomy.

Next, consider the false notion that the scientist uses reason, while the theologian uses faith.   In reality, both the scientist and the theologian use a lot of faith.  Here we are speaking of general faith rather than saving faith.  Before even beginning an inquiry, both the scientist and the theologian must trust (have faith in) their senses, their mind, the laws of logic, and their sources.  Since no successful scientist or theologian works alone, he must also trust his colleagues to a certain degree.  And both the theologian and the scientist assume (have faith in) such philosophic principles as causality (that there is a cause-effect relationship present in every event) and parsimony (that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is preferred, also called Occam’s razor).

And, of course, both scientist and theologian exercise (or should exercise) plenty of reason too.

9.  Recognize that there are disagreements within both science and theology.

Don't pretend that either science or theology speak with a united voice.  In reality, science does not say anything.  Rather, certain scientists say one thing, and other scientists may well say something different. And the same is true with theology.

10.  Fight the tendency to generalize and jump to conclusions.

Watch out for unwarranted generalizations as well as their constant companions, dogmatism and false absolutes.  Perhaps we jump to conclusions because we are impatient.  Nevertheless, the tendency to generalize appears to be a built-in human trait.  We observe it in the language development of young children (referred to by developmental psychologists as over extensions).  We observe it in grade school children when, for instance, a girl announces that “all boys are mean.”  And we observe it frequently in adult conversations.  But both the theologian and the scientist should strive for precision, which means they will look for the exceptions to the rule, or the situations in which their “law” does not apply.

11.  Be willing to withhold judgment.

A complete integration of science and theology is difficult and perhaps impossible, mainly due to the fluidity of science.  When we face a stubborn point of tension between theology and science, we must be willing to admit that we don’t have an answer, and hope that the future will bring more evidence that will clarify things.

For example, consider the subject of radiometric dating – a method of measuring the age of (and thus assigning a geologic period for) a given mineral sample based on the known decay rates of radioactive elements and the proportions of parent and daughter elements found in the sample.  For many years Christians have been skeptical of the results of radiometric dating.  They usually list three assumptions made by those who champion radiometric dating, which, if false, would drastically alter the results.  Those three assumptions are (1) that decay rates are constant, (2) that no environmental contamination of the sample has occurred, and (3) that the initial proportions of the radioactive isotopes and the daughter elements is known.  Assumptions (2) and (3) apply to individual samples and are extremely difficult either to affirm or deny for any given sample.  Thus, on the one hand, the proponent of radiometric dating can claim that the skeptic has no reason to doubt (2) and (3), while, on the other hand, the skeptic can claim that the proponent has no reason to accept (2) and (3).  So if (2) and (3) are the only issues on the table, the main question revolves around the claims, which can go either way.  However, assumption (1) applies to the radioactive disintegration process itself, rather than the individual samples, and thus is open to testing.

The Institute for Creation Research has organized a group of scientists for this very purpose, and has called the group RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth).  They will be concentrating on actual experimentation and hope to produce a report by 2005.  Until actual evidence about the constancy of decay rates is gathered, we should all withhold judgment.  (See "RATE Group to Release Book," Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, Aug. 2000).

E.  Limitations of Science

Science has inherent limitations which make it impossible for science to provide a complete world view.  Theology should form the basis for one's world view, while science supplements theology.  But it should not be just science plus theology in two separate compartments.  Rather, it should be science integrated with theology.  Below are three factors which highlight the limitations of science.

1.  Scientific authority is limited to the physical

Science has a limited sphere of authority.  Science can speak authoritatively only about physical matters.  This is necessarily the case, for the scientific method, which is at the core of all science, relies completely on observation.  Thus, science can say nothing definitive about the spiritual realm (God, spirits, souls, good, evil, miracles, etc.) since that realm is not subject to direct observation.  The spiritual realm is, by definition, completely out of the reach of the scientific method.  (See C. S. Lewis, “Religion and Science” in God in the dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Eerdmans, 1970)

Science makes use of both inductive and deductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning begins with particulars (observations) and moves to the general (summary descriptions, laws, etc.).  In contrast, deductive reasoning begins with a general statement (major premise) and moves to the particular, as illustrated by the syllogism.  Science uses induction when it is discovering, and uses deduction when it is predicting.

The scientific method is often described as a series of steps similar to the following:

1st – Observation of some physical property or event
2nd – Hypothesis formation (which tries to predict what will happen in the next step)
3rd – Experimentation/Testing/Research (more observation)
4th – Verify, refute, or refine the hypothesis

The above, of course, is very idealistic and certainly an oversimplification.  Nevertheless, it shows clearly that all scientific endeavor is dependent on observation.  The process moves back and forth between observation and contemplation (or explanation) with each new round of contemplation dependent on the previous round of observation, and vice versa.  And, of course, herein lies science’s limitation, for only the physical can be directly observed.

Many scientists, based on their scientific findings, attempt to draw implications about the non material realm.  But when a scientist does this, he must realize that he is dealing with implications, not direct evidence.  Thus he is speaking as a philosopher, not a scientist, and should not present his views as though they have been “proven” by science.

As an example of a person who forgot this limitation of science, consider the words of the British scientist Thomas Huxley (1825-1895).  He coined the word “agnostic” and gained world-wide fame for his defense of Darwinism.  In the quotation below, he clearly overextends the domain of legitimate science.

In my judgment, the actuality of this spiritual world — the value of the evidence for its objective existence and its influence upon the course of things — are matters, which lie as much within the province of science, as any other question about the existence and powers of the varied forms of living and conscious activity.

I have said . . . that a priori notions, about the possibility, or the impossibility, of the existence of a world of spirits, such as that presupposed by genuine Christianity, have no influence on my mind.  The question for me is purely one of evidence: is the evidence adequate to bear out the theory, or is it not?  In my judgment it is not only inadequate, but quite absurdly insufficient.  And on that ground, I should feel compelled to reject the theory; even if there were no positive grounds for adopting a totally different conception of the Cosmos.  (Thomas Henry Huxley Science and Christian Tradition, 1896, pages xiii, xvi)

Notice that Huxley states that Christians presuppose a world of spirits.  While this may be true of some Christians, it is not an approach that is needed by Christianity.

In the “soft” sciences, such as psychology, observations often involve individual behaviors (which vary widely from one individual to the next) and reports of such things as feelings and mental states (things that cannot be observed directly).  Such variability and indirectness should serve to remind us that the conclusions are tentative at best.  So, when a group of persons reports near death experiences or alien abductions, we are justified in raising a lot of questions about the validity and precision of their reports and their implications.  Similarly, when a person reports a religious vision or a conversation with the devil, we should respond in like fashion.

2.  Causes cannot be exclusive

Suppose that science claims that A causes Z.  Suppose also that this claim is correct.  Still, science is unable to exclude other untested causes.  Another cause B, which might be physical or spiritual, may also be able to cause Z.  So it would be rather arrogant to claim that, since A causes Z, B cannot be a cause of Z.  For example, suppose that a scientist does enough observations and clinical studies to become convinced that positive answers to prayers are caused by a mechanism called self-fulfillment, or self-fulfilling prophecies.  (This would be a mechanism that operates similarly to a placebo in a controlled medical experiment.)  Even if this is true, it does not eliminate the possibility that another (spiritual) cause can have the same effect.  So the scientist cannot eliminate God just because he has found a psychological explanation.

But this works the other way around too.  The person who is convinced that God answers his prayers should not assume that there are no such things as self-fulfilling prophecies.

A corollary to the above is the fact that a valid scientific explanation for a current phenomenon is not necessarily the only possible explanation for the same phenomenon in the past.  Suppose, for example, that a scientist uses a particular process to create, from non-living matter, life that is both stable and able to reproduce itself.   That does not prove that this process is the one that took place when life originally came into existence on the earth.  At best the scientist could offer his method of producing life as one way it could have happened.  But he is unable to say with any certainty that it did happen that way, or that it could not have happened some other way.

3.  The history of science is a history of change

Considering the track record of scientific thought, Francis Schaeffer offers this advice.

When we face apparent problems between present scientific theories and the teaching of the Bible, the first rule is not to panic, as though scientific theory is always right.  The history of science, including science in our own day, has often seen great dogmatism about theories which later have been discarded. . . .  When we come to a problem, we should take time as educated people to reconsider both the special and general revelations . . . .  (Francis Schaeffer, No Final Conflict, InterVarsity Press, 1975, page 24)

To be sure, there has been a lot of growth or expansion in science, that is, preserving older ideas while adding new detail.  But the history of science is also littered with the obsolete.  Every scientific field has its examples of basic concepts which have been replaced by new and different discoveries and models.  Those who have great confidence in the current views of science should remember that, just as the old has been superseded by the new throughout the history of science, many of today's ideas will one day be replaced by the next temporary idea.

(a)  Examples from physics

(1) Phlogiston needed for combustion

In the late 1600's scientists were trying to figure out why oxidation and combustion occur  (both slow oxidation as when metals rust and rapid oxidation, or combustion, as when materials burn).  Georg Stahl, a German chemist, suggested the existence of a weightless substance called phlogiston.  He claimed burning occurred as phlogiston left the material and that the amount of phlogiston in a given material determined how well it would burn.  His theory was readily accepted and became part of the description of the makeup of all matter.  However, belief in phlogiston lasted only about 85 years until scientists discovered "fire air," which Lavoisier, a French chemist, named "oxygen."

(2) Electricity as a fluid

In 1752, when Benjamin Franklin did his famous experiment with a kite in a thunderstorm, he thought that electricity was a fluid.  Accordingly, a positive object had extra electric fluid while a negative object did not have enough.  This provided an explanation for the sudden discharges that occur with static electricity or lightning.  Electrons were not discovered until nearly 150 years later.

(3) Luminiferous ether needed for the transmission of light

Luminiferous ether was once thought to be the medium which made it possible for light to travel across empty space.  It was believed that this ether could not be seen or weighed, and was present in vacuums, outer space, and all matter.  The ether was stationary, with all objects passing through it.  This concept was popular for approximately 150 years from the early 1700's through the late 1800's.  Here is Dr. Avery's description of luminiferous ether from a high school science textbook published in 1885:

There is sufficient reason for believing that there is a medium pervading all space which carries off part of the invisible motions of molecules, just as the air carries off a portion of the motion of moving masses.  This medium, called the luminiferous ether, occupies all space.  The gaps between the sun, the planets and their satellites are filled with this ether.  It makes the universe a whole and renders possible the intercommunication of light and energy between star and star. . . .  This ether is wonderful, not only in its incomprehensible vastness but equally so in its subtleness.  While it surrounds the suns of unnumbered systems and fills all interstellar space, it also surrounds the smallest particles of matter and fills intermolecular space as well.  It is called luminiferous because it is the medium by which light is propagated, it serving as a common carrier for both heat and light. . . .  The enormous velocity with which the ether transmits heat and light as wave motion (about 186,000 miles per second), compels us to assume for the ether both extreme elasticity and extreme tenuity.  (Elroy M. Avery, Elements of Natural Philosophy, Sheldon, 1885, pages 453-454)

(4) Various models of the atom.

1897, Thomson discovers the first subatomic particle, the electron
1902, Kelvin’s model (also known as the Thomson atom), a solid sphere of positive charge in which negatively charged electrons are imbedded like raisins in a pudding
1903, (Unknown origin), atoms are composed of dynamids, that is, pairs of small negative electrons and large positive bodies
1904, Nagaoka’s model, all positive charge is at center of atom with electrons forming rings like Saturn’s rings
1905, Kelvin’s next model, alternating spheres of positive and negative charge with the electrons in the positive spheres
1910, Rutherford’s model, the first truly nuclear model (the “planetary” or “orbital” model), placed most of the atom’s mass in a positively charged nucleus
1913, Bohr’s model, electrons travel in fixed orbits
1928 (approx.), Schrödinger and Heisenberg, the “cloud” model
1964, Gell-mann suggests quarks, the building blocks of protons and neutrons

No field is more basic to the scientific endeavor than physics.  Classical physics reached its high point with Isaac Newton in the late 1600s and his concept of universal gravitation and his formulas for the movement of bodies.  Classical physics assumed that the two entities, space and time, are entirely separate and independent.  It was thought that time was constant everywhere, and that the speed of light was relative to the motion of the observer.  (This notion regarding the behavior of light was somewhat analogous to the behavior of sound.  Sound has a higher pitch when the listener and the source are approaching each other, and a lower pitch when they are moving away from each other.)

But observations failed to confirm any similar variance in the speed of light.  So Einstein proposed something radical – when the observer is moving, the speed of light remains constant but time (for the observer) varies!  Einstein presented his theory of special relativity in 1905 and general relativity in 1915.  Because relativity makes the speed of light constant and time relative, it affects the way scientists calculate the motions of very small objects (such as electrons) and very large objects (such as galaxies).

Also, in 1913, when Niels Bohr started his work on the motion of electrons, he applied classical physics.  After a few years of partial success, he and others began to realize that a new understanding of the laws governing the movement of very small particles was needed.  The needed insight came from Max Plank and is known as quantum physics or quantum mechanics.  It gave new understandings of the measurement of radiant energy and the behavior of particles at the atomic and subatomic levels.  By 1925,

physicists realized that the principles of quantum mechanics differ drastically from those of Newtonian mechanics, even when used in the relativistic form developed by Einstein in 1905  ("Quantum Mechanics," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982, Vol. 11, p. 793)

The progress made in the fields of atomic physics and chemistry since 1925 has been due, almost exclusively, to the application of quantum physics.

Dr. George Gamow is one of the physicists who made several contributions to the new quantum physics.  After it had become well established, he made the following comment about the state of quantum physics and the next step:

We are still waiting for a breakthrough in the solid wall of difficulties which prevent us from understanding the very existence of elementary particles, their masses, charges, magnetic moments, and interactions.  There is hardly any doubt that when such a breakthrough is achieved, it will involve concepts that will be as different from those of today as today's concepts are different from those of classical physics.  (Gamow, Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory, Dover, 1966, page 5)

But now both of these assumptions are being questioned.  During the 1990's a number of experiments were done which require scientists to conclude either (1) that light particles (photons) can travel many times faster than "the speed of light," or (2) that they can be in two places at once, or (3) that there are spaces in the universe which are devoid of time, or to make some other radical adjustment to their present ideas.  John Gribbin, a science writer, provides the following description of one of these experiments.

Raymond Chaio, of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues have actually been measuring a different, but related, kind of tunneling. They have devised an experiment in which two photons (particles of light) are produced simultaneously in a source, and travel on parallel paths. One photon goes straight to a detector; the other is confronted by a barrier which would reflect the light if the photons obeyed the laws of classical, "Newtonian" physics. But according to quantum theory there is a high probability that some of the photons arriving at the mirror will tunnel straight through, and go on their way to the detector.
      Sure enough, that is what happens. The barrier is 1.1 micrometers thick, so anything traveling through it at the speed of light would take 3.6 femtoseconds (3.6 thousand million millionths of a second) on the journey. But the new experiment is so sophisticated that it can compare the arrival times of pairs of photons, one of which has gone past the barrier and one through it, and shows that the one which goes through the barrier arrives first. It tunneled through the barrier faster than the speed of light, in less than 3.6 femtoseconds. As the researchers put it, "it is as though the particle 'skipped' the bulk of the barrier". But don't ask them, or anyone else, what it means – in the words of Richard Feynman, "nobody understands quantum mechanics".  (website http://epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk/Home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm dated 1996)

So the field of quantum physics, which has prevailed since the early 1900's, now struggles to explain the physical evidence.  The same situation exists now as existed when classical physics had to face new evidence.

Indeed, our very understanding of light itself has shifted over the years.  In past centuries, scientists have described light as behaving as waves in certain circumstances, but as particles in other circumstances, indicating that the subject was not well understood.  The notion that light was waves held predominance for decades, but then the notion that light was particles became prominent.  During the 1900s it became well documented that light (indeed, all matter) did in fact exhibit a dual nature combining the properties of both waves and particles.  (See the Wikipedia article on "Wave-particle Duality.")

Besides the quandary that quantum physics is in, it should also be noted that some scientists believe that the theory of relativity has never been adequately demonstrated.  (See Slusher & Ramirez, The Motion of Mercury's Perihelion, Institute for Creation Research, 1984.)

So our understanding of the universe will continue to change.

Consider, for a moment, one of the most frequently used arguments for an old universe – starlight from distant galaxies.  There are many who claim that, because of their great distance from us and because of the speed of light, the universe must be billions of years old.  However, do we really know what light is?  Do we really know how fast it can travel through a vacuum, or tunnel through the mysterious dark matter which is supposed to be abundant in space?  Is its speed affected by dark energy?  Such uncertainties would make any such claim for an old universe rather bold (to use the kindest word possible).  On the other hand, scientific uncertainty regarding an old universe should not be construed as scientific proof of a young universe.

(b)  Examples from astronomy and cosmology

Old theories die hard.  Astronomy has gained a great deal of information in the last couple decades thanks to such things as the Hubble space telescope, improved light detection methods, ultrafast supercomputers, and the new Keck observatory in Hawaii.  But with these new tools have come many puzzling observations which give rise to many "new and wonderful" ideas floating around among astronomers and cosmologists.  Keeping in mind the penchant reporters have for the spectacular, it is still interesting to read the following:

Not long ago [Tod] Lauer and his close friend and collaborator Marc Postman, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, in Baltimore, Maryland, announced the results of a telescopic study they had been working on for more than a year.  The young scientists reached the astonishing conclusion that rather than expanding outward in a stately fashion like the rest of the universe, a collection of many thousands of galaxies, including our own and spanning a billion light-years or so, may be speeding en masse toward a point somewhere in the direction of the constellation Virgo.
      Yet rather than try to assimilate this new finding, most of their colleagues are proclaiming that it must be a mistake. . . .  The analysis is incorrect, they say, simply because it doesn't fit in with any existing theory of how the cosmos works.
. . .
What's happening these days in cosmology . . . verges on the bizarre.  Astronomers have come up with one theory-busting discovery after another, hinting that a scientific revolution may be close at hand.  At stake are answers to some of the most fundamental questions facing humanity: What is the origin of the universe?  What is it made of?  And what is its ultimate destiny?  (Lemonick & Nash, "Unraveling Universe," Time, March 6, 1995, page 77)

Astronomers also differ over the age of the universe, based on two different methods of measurement.  For some time astronomers have studied the chemical composition of star clusters and estimated the age of the universe at 15 - 20 billion years.  More recently, however, by measuring the speeds at which other galaxies recede, some astronomers calculate the age of the universe at only 8 - 12 billion years.

And within the last decade another fundamental change has taken place in the thinking of astronomers regarding the expanding universe.  It had been standard belief that the rate at which the universe was expanding was decreasing.  In fact, dark matter was invented as the explanation since this undetectable matter would provide the gravitational pull needed to slow down the expansion of the universe.  However, observations of Class Ia supernovae in distant parts of the universe have now convinced most astronomers that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing.  This has been accounted for by the "invention" of dark energy, which is supposedly pushing outward and increasing the expansion of the universe with greater force than the gravity of dark matter which was thought to be slowing the expansion of the universe.

The above are just a few examples of a continual barrage of questions generated by recent observations which require continual inventions to adapt the standard, cosmogenic model, the big bang.  As the American philosopher and scientist, Thomas Kuhn, has emphasized, the current scientific system of belief (Kuhn's "paradigm") takes on a life of its own which tends to smother true scientific progress by dismissing any new data which doesn't fit.  In the words of Geoffrey Burbidge of the University of California, San Diego,

There's a tremendous bandwagon rolling, which makes anybody who says anything contrary to the Big Bang highly suspect  (quoted by Ivars Peterson in "State of the Universe: If not with a Bib Bang, then What?" Science News, April 13, 1991, page 235)

(c)  Examples from medicine and biology

(1) Ancient Egypt

• Ancient Egypt, diseases were thought to be caused by displeased gods, cured by appeasing the gods
• Ancient Egypt, the urine of a faithful wife was used to treat sore eyes
• Ancient Egypt, Hippocrates maintained huge bonfires to defeat a contagious epidemic

(2) Europe and the United States

• 1700s, Europe, bloodletting (also called venesection, cutting a vein) to cure disease
• 1700s, mental disorders were treated by use of a rotating chair
• 1935 - 1950, many lobotomies performed to treat mental disorders (now used rarely)

(3) Spontaneous generation

Spontaneous generation is the view that complex, living organisms are spontaneously generated by decaying organic matter or by certain inorganic matter.  For example, it was believed that maggots came from rotting meat, mice from rotting grain, frogs from mud, and crocodiles from rotting logs.  This view goes back at least as far as Aristotle (300's B.C.).

During the 1600's the idea of spontaneous generation was questioned. For example, in 1646 Sir Thomas Browne wrote his "Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenets and Commonly Presumed Truths" in which he debunked a number of widespread "truths" including spontaneous generation.  However, the idea had been accepted for 2000 years and such questions were considered radical.  In 1668 Fancesco Redi showed the connection between flies laying eggs and maggots.  Spontaneous generation was debated for the next 200 years and the invention of the microscope only added to the confusion by bringing to light many microorganisms which were thought to arise spontaneously.

In 1859 Louis Pasteur performed an experiment in which he proved that microorganisms are already present everywhere (even in the air).  This discredited spontaneous generation and supported the notion that all organisms are produced by parent organisms of the same kind.

We can learn a valuable lesson from this shifting scene called science.  It is a mistake to think that science has “a final word” on anything!  What will the people in the 23rd century think of our quaint views of nature and of the heavens and our archaic forms of medical treatment?

When we find that science supports our theological views, we should still be cautious about appealing to such scientific support, for it may disappear sooner or later.  Note the following warning from C. S. Lewis:

We must be very cautious of snatching at any scientific theory which, for the moment, seems to be in our favour.  We may mention such things; but we must mention them lightly and without claiming that they are more than ‘interesting’.  Sentences beginning ‘Science has now proved’ should be avoided.  If we try to base our apologetic on some recent development in science, we shall usually find that just as we have put the finishing touches to our argument science has changed its mind and quietly withdrawn the theory we have been using as our foundation stone.  [Lewis then quotes from Virgil’s Aeneid, ‘I fear the Greeks even when they bear gifts.’] (“Christian Apologetics,” God in the dock, Eerdmans, 1970, p. 92)

F.  Historical Example – The Copernican Revolution

There is a classic case of integration which deserves attention, the Copernican Revolution.  The model of the solar system put forward by Copernicus was radically new and became the foundation for many later advances in science.  But the process of integrating this new science with the old theology was very difficult.  The church responded poorly to the challenge of science, and bigotry threatened individuals lives.  We can learn a significant lesson from this past mistake.

1.  The Context of the Copernican Revolution (a few highlights from the history of astronomy)

4000 B.C. — The builders of Stonehenge in southern England were able to predict positions of the sun and moon.
1300 B.C. — Chinese astronomers recorded eclipses and positions of the stars.
700 B.C. — Babylonian astronomers were able to predict the positions of planets and other astronomical objects.
700 B.C. — The Egyptians used the position of the star Sirius to determine the beginning of springtime.
500's B.C. — Pythagorus, Greek astronomer and mathematician, asserted that the earth is round.
370 B.C. — Eudoxus of Cnidus (in Asia Minor) taught that the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolve around a stationary earth.  This geocentric model was adopted by Aristotle.
300's B.C. — Heraclides of Pontus (Asia Minor) theorized that the apparent westward movement of the stars, etc., is due to the eastward rotation of the earth, and claimed that Mercury and Venus revolve around the sun.
200's B.C. — Aristarchus of Samos (Greece) suggests that all the planets (including the earth) revolve around the sun, but most rejected this idea in favor of the geocentric model.
150 A.D. — Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer living in Alexandria, Egypt, published a work entitled Almagest which was based on the geocentric model and included tables of planetary motions.  Underlying the planetary motions was a complex arrangement of circles (epicycles) whose centers moved in circles (deferents), necessitated by the fact that certain planets were seen to move backwards at certain times.  The geocentric model prevailed for the next 1400 years, being preserved and enhanced by Arab astronomers in northern Africa and the Middle East.
1543 A.D. — Nicolaus Copernicus, Polish astronomer, published his momentous work, Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, which claimed that the Earth rotated daily around its own axis and yearly around the sun (or more precisely, around a point near the sun).  In other words, the sun was the center of the universe and all the planets revolve around the sun.  This is the heliocentric model.  The apparent backward movement of certain planets is explained, not by epicycles, but by the much simpler notion that the earth itself is moving around the sun.
1613 A.D. — Galileo, Italian astronomer, published "The Starry Messenger" and three letters describing the movements of sunspots, which favored the Copernican (heliocentric) model.  In 1625 he used the newly invented telescope to observe that several moons revolve around Jupiter, further discrediting the geocentric model.  In 1632 he published another book favoring heliocentrism, which resulted in his arrest and trial before the Inquisition in Rome.  The church planted a document, predated at 1616, which supposedly enjoined Galileo not to teach the new world view.  In the face of these trumped up charges and thus the threat of torture and possible death, he pretended to recant.  He was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.  In 1992 Pope Paul II publicly recognized the error of the church in this matter.
1620 A.D. — Johannes Kepler, German astronomer, used the data from the meticulous observations of Tycho Brahe, Danish astronomer, to show that the planets actually orbit the sun in ellipses.
1665 A.D. — Isaac Newton, English astronomer and scientist, propounded the law of universal gravitation and used it to explain the motions of the planets.  By the time Newton died in 1727, most scientists held that the sun was the center of the universe.

2.  The Church’s Response

By the time of Copernicus, the geocentric model with its fixed earth was so well entrenched that it enjoyed the status of a self-evident article of faith.  When Copernicus first suggested his heliocentric model to his friends and colleagues, many of them accepted it.  In fact, when it was presented in Rome to Pope Clement VII in 1533, he also accepted it.  However, when the manuscript of Celestial Spheres was taken to Nurnberg, Germany for printing in 1540, Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon objected and the manuscript had to be taken to Liepzig for publication.

Keep in mind that acceptance of the heliocentric model required a major shift in thinking in several areas.  It not only gave different answers to such questions as whether the earth is fixed and whether the earth is the center of the universe, but it also suggested that the earth was just another planet and that the universe was even larger than previously thought (indeed, perhaps an infinite universe) and thus raised questions about man’s place in the universe.  It even required a new explanation of the fact that objects fall to the ground.  Aristotle explained falling objects by stating that they tend to move to their natural place, which was at the center of the universe.  Since Aristotle had adopted the geocentric model, that natural place was the center of the earth.  But with the heliocentric model, the center of the universe had moved and a new explanation of falling objects was needed.  So the heliocentric model was truly revolutionary and deeply upsetting to many.

Add to this the fact that a number of verses in the Bible speak of the sun rising and setting (such as Genesis 28:11, Jonah 4:8, and Matthew 5:45), and Ps 19:4-6 speaks of the sun moving in relation to the earth.  These were incorrectly taken as support for a geocentric model.

The Roman Catholic church rejected the idea that the earth was just another planet and continued to ban the use of Copernicus’ work for the next two hundred years.  When Galileo published works using the Copernican (heliocentric) model, he was tried by the church, and under the threat of death, pretended to recant.

G.  Misusing Science – The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Christians should be careful not to misuse science in their eagerness to defend their beliefs.  One aspect of science that is frequently misused is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy.

1.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics Misused

Sometimes the second law of thermodynamics is used as a magic wand to dismiss any claims of evolution.  Christians state that, (1) in the process of the divine creation, the universe went from disorder to order.  Certainly this is a correct statement and corresponds with the description of creation found in the first chapter of Genesis.  However, Christians further state that (2) such a transition is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, and that is why it must be considered miraculous and cannot be accounted for by mere naturalistic processes.  They also state that (3) evolution requires an increase in genetic information which is impossible for natural processes to accomplish according to the second law of thermodynamics.  Both of these latter statements misuse the second law of thermodynamics.  The misuse centers around a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "order".  In the second law of thermodynamics, this word refers to usable energy.  But Christian authors and speakers frequently interpret the word to mean orderliness of arrangement – something entirely different.

Here are two examples of the type of misuse mentioned above.  These examples are taken from the writings of Christians who are attempting to defend against evolution and the big bang.

This first example is from The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris.  This is the book that gave impetus to the current flood geology and young earth movement.  At the time they wrote this book, Whitcomb was professor of Old Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, and Morris was director of the Creation Science Research Center and had taught civil engineering at several secular universities.

Evolution, in the broad sense, implies increasing organization and complexity in the universe . . . conversely . . . the second [law of thermodynamics affirms] that the original creation is decreasing in organization and complexity.  (Whitcomb & Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961, page xxi footnote 2, compare page 223 footnote 1)

This second example is from Harold Slusher who, at the time of this writing taught physics at the University of Texas in El Paso and planetary sciences at the Graduate School of the Institute for Creation Research.  In a section entitled "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" he writes:

This concept of disorder to order, chaos to cosmos (the evolutionary claim) is directly contradicted by the very basic and underlying principle of physics called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Thermal energy is disordered energy.  (Harold Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, Rev. ed., Institute for Creation Research, 1980, page 3)

The universe is alleged by the evolutionist to be one big isolated system, and if that is the case, it cannot have moved itself from a chaotic state to the cosmos.  In fact, we see today a universe that is losing order, form, and body.  (op. cit. page 9)

Slusher then quotes George Gamow, who refers to the transition from the "simplicity of the early days of creation to the present immense complexity of the universe," and evaluates this notion as inconsistent with the law of entropy.  (op. cit. pages 9-10)

Now we will attempt to explain why the above statements misuse the second law of thermodynamics.

2.  What is Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics is the study of energy, heat, and work, including the energy related properties of objects and the processes involved in changing those properties.  The energy possessed by an object is possessed in various ways including volume, mass, temperature, pressure, linear velocity, rotational velocity, vibration, chemical composition, electronic state, nuclear state, etc. or a combination of these.

Historically, there are two aspects of thermodynamics.  The older aspect is referred to as “classic thermodynamics” and the younger is known as “molecular thermodynamics” (or “statistical thermodynamics”).

Having been developed in the 1800s before the atomic theory of matter was generally accepted, classical thermodynamics is not based on any atomic or molecular theory, and its results are independent of any atomic or molecular models. This character of classical thermodynamics is both a strength and a weakness: classical thermodynamic results will never need to be modified as scientific knowledge of atomic and molecular structure improves or changes, but classical thermodynamics gives no insight into the physical properties or behavior of physical systems at the molecular level.  (Encyclopaedia Britannica, www.britannica.com, article on “Statistical Thermodynamics”)

3.  The Four Laws

There are four laws of thermodynamics, numbered 0, 1, 2, and 3.  (The word “law” is used to refer to a principle based on consistent observations.)  Even though the zeroth law is logically basic to the first law, it was developed after the first law was well established in the literature, hence its name.

The zeroth law:  This law establishes a concept of relative temperature and a principle of temperature measurement which takes into account the various aspects of energy mentioned above.  It is foundational to the law of conservation of energy (which had already become known as the first law), so this law was named the zeroth law.

The first law:  This law deals with the conservation of energy and can be stated in different ways, such as:

In a closed system the total amount of energy remains constant.  Similarly, whenever energy is converted in form, its total quantity remains constant.

In an open system the change in the amount of energy in the system equals the amount of energy going into the system minus the amount of the energy coming out of the system.

The third law: This law deals with temperature and absolute zero, –273.15 degrees Celsius, or centigrade (= zero degrees Kelvin),  which is theoretically unattainable.  As a system approaches its minimum temperature, further extraction of energy becomes more and more difficult.

4.  The Second Law Explained

The second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental law of physics and is considered by some to be the most universal controller of natural phenomena.  This law deals with the tendency toward equilibrium, and can be stated in various ways.  Here is one statement of the second law:

In a closed system, entropy (a measure of the loss of usable energy) increases.  That is, a system that begins in an ordered state (low entropy, lots of useful energy) will spontaneously become a disordered system (greater entropy), tending toward equilibrium.

The second law of thermodynamics (for both large and small systems, including the molecular level) can be diagrammed as follows:

Remember that the second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system.

Example 1 – the clock.  A fully wound clock serves as a simple, non-scientific illustration of a closed system.  The clock's spring contains a certain amount of energy because of internal pressures (different areas of tension and compression within the spring).  Over time the clock's spring will use up that energy to drive the clock mechanism.  Eventually the clock will run down and stop since there will be no more energy available from the spring.  Using terms from the above diagram, we would say that the clock's useful energy has been dissipated, the clock's energy has gone from ordered to disordered, and its entropy has increased.  The clock, as a closed system, will never wind itself up.  Now if a person comes along and winds up the clock, it will again have useful energy and be able to run.  However, at that point the clock is no longer a closed system, but has become part of a larger system which includes the person.

Example 2 – two blocks of metal.  Here is a more scientific example.  The difference in temperature in a two-compartment system is considered an ordered state.  If two objects of different temperature are “in thermal communication,” of its own accord heat will flow only from the hot object to the cold object.  In other words, if a system consists of two blocks of metal at different temperatures in surface contact, the ordered state (unbalanced temperature distribution) rapidly decays into a disordered state of uniform temperature.  (See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, 1997, “Thermodynamics”, and www.britannica.com article on “Statistical Thermodynamics”)

In both of the above examples, using terminology appropriate to the second law, we would say that the progression is from order to disorder.  However, the term "order" can be used in a different sense, even when describing a temperature change.  In the following two examples there is a spontaneous increase in the orderly arrangement of molecules or larger structures.  (These are not examples of closed systems, but they are commonly described as moving from disorder to order, which appears to confuse many people.

Example 3 – cooling water.  The molecules in hot water are described with terms such as “agitated,” “disorderly,” and “in random movement.”  When water cools and freezes, its molecules are said to be in an “orderly crystalline arrangement,” such as is observed in crystals of snowflakes.   (For example, see World Book, article on “Heat.”)

Example 4 – Stratification.  After a column of water is disturbed and then left to settle, “orderly” strata are formed.

5.  Reasons to avoid appealing to the Second Law

There are three reasons why the second law of thermodynamics should not be used to counter evolution.

First, as shown above, there is confusion over the scientific meaning of the word "order" as used in the context of discussions of the second law of thermodynamics.  When the scientist talks about physical systems moving from order to disorder, he is using the word “order” to refer to the usability of energy.  But when Christians refer to the original creation as disordered or chaotic (“without form and void,” Genesis 1:2) they are using the word "order" to refer to orderly arrangement.

Second, according to Christian theology, the universe is not a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

Third, the second law of thermodynamics is well established in the fields of mechanics and physics, both at the large system level and the molecular level.  However, the law is not directly applicable to other fields such as biology, sociology, and information science (particularly genetics).  Some have applied it to biology and genetics, but only by analogy.  It should be remembered that analogy can serve well to illustrate and clarify an idea that is already established, but it has no power to establish the idea.

H.  Biblical Writers and Incorrect Models – The Vaulted Heavens

Some people say the Bible is full of error because they think it promotes outmoded, unscientific views.

1.  The Language of Appearance

In some cases, the explanation is rather simple.  For example, the Bible speaks of the sun rising and setting and moving in relation to the earth (Genesis 28:11, Jonah 4:8, and Matthew 5:45, and Ps 19:4-6).  But is this an error, simply because the wording is unscientific?  Not at all.  These passages simply employ wording based on appearance, which we still employ today (and probably always will) to describe the movement of the sun.  To claim that the Bible must use precise technical terms, rather than the language of appearance is to force an unreasonable restriction on the Bible.  When we speak of "skyscrapers" we too are using the language of appearance, and we feel no need to explain that we understand that those tall buildings do not actually scrape the sky.  In other words, using the language of appearance does not make one unscientific.  Describing things the way they appear is simply part of the way language works.

2.  The Language of Analogy

In some cases both we and the biblical writers use analogy to get a point across.  For example, God is not an actual rock.  But when a biblical writer says "God is my rock," as in Psalm 18:2, he is drawing an analogy between the rock and God, and applying one of the characteristics of a rock (such as strength) to God.  It is important to make a distinction here between the (1) language that the Bible uses (which at times is based on analogy), and (2) the assertions that the Bible makes.

Similarly, when a Bible passage says that God does something with his right hand, as in Psalm 20:6, does that mean that the writer is actually asserting that God has a physical right hand?  Obviously not.  This is known as anthropomorphism and is a common practice in the Bible (both to describe God and other spirits, good or evil) and in other religious systems as well.  The human characteristics are "applied" to God in order to assert something else about God, such as the fact that he is mighty.

3.  An Incorrect Model – The Vaulted Heavens

In the case of the vaulted heavens, however, the explanation is not quite so simple.  In this case there seems to be something going on that is more complex than merely describing things by appearance or merely drawing an analogy.  In certain passages the biblical writers seem to adopt a particular picture or model of the universe that we know today is incorrect.  Only rarely do they speak of the heavens and earth as we know them, as in the following quotation.

He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7)

More commonly they describe the earth and sky as though they actually thought that a domed or vaulted ceiling was stretched out like a tent or canopy arching above a flat earth, and that the earth was supported on pillars.

  Passages referring to a place above the vault of the heavens:

Job 22:14 — Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; And He walks on the vault of heaven.
Isaiah 40:22a — It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers
Amos 9:6 — The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens, And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth

  Passages referring to a foundation or pillars under the earth:

Psalms 104:5 — He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever
1 Samuel 2:8b — The pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them.  (cf. Job 26:7)

  Passages speaking of the heavens at a fixed location above the earth that can be reached:

Genesis 11:4 — And they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
Genesis 28:12 — And he had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
Daniel 4:20 — 'The tree that you saw, which became large and grew strong, whose height reached to the sky and was visible to all the earth (cf v. 11 “visible to the ends of the earth”)

  Passages speaking of the heavens as a tent:

Psalms 19:4-6 — Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
Psalms 104:1-2 — Thou art clothed with splendor and majesty, Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
Isaiah 40:22b — Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Isaiah 40:22b — I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.

  Passages referring to openings in heaven:

2 Kings 7:2 — And the royal officer on whose hand the king was leaning answered the man of God and said, "Behold, if the LORD should make windows in heaven, could this thing be?" Then he said, "Behold you shall see it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat of it."  (compare 2 Kings 7:19)
Psalms 78:23-24 — Yet He commanded the clouds above, And opened the doors of heaven; And He rained down manna upon them to eat, And gave them food from heaven.
Acts 10:11 — and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground
Revelation 4:1 — After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."

What we see in the above passages is more than the mere use of the language of appearance.  Unlike the rising sun or the skyscraper, which are things that are seen, here the biblical writers are describing things that have never been seen – inhabitants above the vault and the pillars beneath the earth (and even the shape of the earth).  It would seem that the biblical writers have adopted an incorrect model of the heavens and earth.

Also there is a problem with merely accepting the vaulted heavens as an analogy.  The analogies illustrated above hold up over time because, for example, rocks still exist and they are still strong.  However, the vaulted heavens model does not hold up.  We now know that there are no pillars holding the earth, no vault that can be walked upon, etc.

Getting the point of the passage is easy – we merely adopt their vaulted heavens model.  But isn't this an admission that the Bible is scientifically incorrect?

4.  How do we account for an incorrect model?

First, we admit that the model is incorrect.  However, even if the Bible were being written today, some of the models would be incorrect.  We dare not presume that we now possess the final and only accurate description of our universe.  If God's creative and providential acts were described today in terms of popularly accepted current models such as the expanding universe or electron clouds, would those models hold up one hundred years from now?  Probably not.  But the truths about God, even though they were expressed in language based on these current (incorrect) models, would hold up.

A biblical writer adopts a particular current model (current to him) because he needs to communicate some truth to his current readers who understand and accept that model.  His purpose is neither to teach about that model (the readers already know the model), nor is it to verify the correctness of the model.

Here again it is important to distinguish between the language of the Bible and the assertions of the Bible.  The Bible will at times borrow language from a certain incorrect model, but it does so in order to make some other assertion.  When a biblical writer speaks of God sitting above the vault of the heavens, he is not affirming that there is a vault, but that God is the exalted ruler of the earth.  When he speaks of God opening the doors of heaven, he is not affirming that there is a vault which has doors, but that God abundantly supplies the needs of his children.

This issue, language versus assertion, has been a central issue in the long standing debate over the inerrancy of the Bible, and it is the reason that the writers of the Lausanne Covenant stated that the Bible is "without error in all that it affirms" (Article 2).

We should not be surprised that one can adopt the language of a model without affirming that model.  We do the same thing, for example, when we speak of people who get angry and "explode," or when we advise a person not to hold in an emotion and let it "build up."  We are using a boiler model of human emotions.  We don't actually believe that there is some physical container which holds emotions, which can build up pressure to the point where it explodes.  But we adopt that wording because it helps communicate the point we want to make.

We cannot be completely certain whether or not the biblical writers actually believed in a physical vault.  But whether they believed in it or not is beside the point.  They used this model to communicate.  And if they did believe it, that is not a problem either because the Bible should be evaluated by its assertions, with full allowance for all the various linguistic means which we all use.

I.  Science's Contributions to Apologetics

Does science lend support to Christian theology?  Some scientific fields are more relevant than others.  Two key disciplines are (1) archeology, regarding the historicity of the biblical record, and (2) paleontology, regarding the origin of man and the question of evolution.  While we are careful to keep the warning of C. S. Lewis in mind (quoted earlier), we still find it "interesting" to note the conclusions of experts from these two fields.

1.  Archeology

Because of the nature of science, it cannot directly verify any basic Christian belief, such as the existence of God or the purpose of the death of Christ.  Such matters are not detectable by observation of the physical world.  However, in view of the fact that the Bible everywhere ties the story of redemption to concrete historical places and events, there is an indirect role that archeology can play.  Many in the past have doubted the historical veracity of the Bible, but archeology dismisses those doubts.

In 1843, at Khorsabad in northern Iraq, a French archeologist, Paul-Emile Botta, discovered reliefs describing the military victories of King Sargon II of Assyria.  This was the king who defeated Samaria in 722 BC and led Israel into captivity.  Ever since this discovery there has been widespread interest in biblical archeology.  Today, various countries maintain archeological research institutes in the Middle East, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, most of them having been founded before 1900.

William F. Albright was a highly respected linguist, archeological researcher, and theologian.  In spite of the fact that his view of the Bible was not as high as it could be (he did not believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture), he still had this to say about the historicity of the Bible:

Its languages, the life and customs of its peoples, its history, and its ethical and religious ideas are all illustrated in innumerable ways by archaeological discovery.  (Wm. F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, Funk & Wagnalls, 1955, published as a supplement to Young's Analytical Concordance, page 6)

There are innumerable points of contact between the details of Hebrew history, life, and literature, and the world around it.  (op.cit., page 51)

In the introduction to his best selling book on biblical archeology, Werner Keller, a German journalist, summarizes the impact of over 100 years of archeological  research.

In Palestine, places and towns that are frequently mentioned in the Bible are being brought back once more to the light of day.  They look exactly as the Bible describes them and lie exactly where the Bible locates them. . . .  These breathtaking discoveries, whose significance it is impossible to grasp all at once, make it necessary for us to revise our views about the Bible.  Many events that previously passed for pious tales must now be judged to be historical. . . .  The events themselves are historical facts and have been recorded with an accuracy that is nothing less than startling. . . .  In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, as I thought of the skeptical criticism which from the eighteenth century onward would fain have demolished the Bible altogether, there kept hammering in my brain this one sentence: "The Bible is right after all!"  (Werner Keller, The Bible as History: A Confirmation of the Book of Books, Bantam Books, 1964, pages xx-xxiv)

But evidence for the historicity of the Bible during the first millennium BC has been much better than that of the second millennium.  In particular, a question has remained in many scholars' minds about the patriarchs.  The main problem is that, in all the archeological work done in Egypt over the past two centuries, nothing has been found that is a convincing verification that any of the patriarchs ever visited, lived in, or did business with Egypt, nor of the exodus.  However, in a recent book archeologist David Rohl (who says he is neutral regarding Christianity) takes a new approach to this problem.  He shows that there is good reason to recalibrate Egyptian chronology so that the date of the exodus (1447) corresponds with the end of the 13th dynasty rather than with the 18th or 19th dynasty, as was previously thought.  Rohl's states the problem as follows:

There are very few artifacts and inscriptions which I have been able to muster in order to illustrate [Israelite history]  . . .  It is precisely this lack of archaeological confirmation – especially before the ninth century BC – which has led to the mythologising of biblical history. . . .  Surely something is not quite right with our present understanding of the relationship between ancient Egypt and ancient Israel.  (David M. Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, Crown, 1995, page 34)

When there is a lack of correlation between what archeology finds and what the Bible says, the tendency of the archeologists is usually to discount the Bible.  In the scenario described below, Rohl reacts differently.  He merely gives the Bible a chance to be correct.  Thus he finds reason to adjust the long standing chronology held by Egyptologists and unearths many correlations between Egyptian and Israelite history.  Here is Rohl's own summary of his conclusions as he traces the correlation between Egyptian and Israelite history using his new chronology (NC) for Egypt.

First we witnessed how scholars of the last century had taken the wrong path right at the beginning of their own journey of discovery.  That false trail, sign posted to 'Raamses' and 'Shishak,' led modern scholarship into a quagmire of confusing anomalies in the chronology and archeology of the ancient world.  Although we began our journey at the same junction and with the same map (i.e. the available evidence), we decided to take the alternative road sign posted 'archeology of the TIP' [Third Intermediate Period, dynasties 21-25].  It was not very long before we arrived at an entirely different ancient world – one with a much greater potential for biblical and archeological synthesis.  The irony was that although the conventional chronology had been based on two key biblical synchronisms it produced an unhappy marriage between excavation results and the Old Testament narratives, whereas we chose to refer directly to the archeological evidence and now had a framework which produced clear links between the Bible and archeology.

        By constructing our 'New Chronology' from the foundations of Egyptian TIP archeology, in combination with a group of ancient genealogies handed down to us by the officials of the period, we were abel to uncover the true historical figure hidden behind the biblical name 'Shishak.'  He was none other than Ramesses the Great – Ozymandias of Shelley's famous poem; the king whom Egyptologists refer to as Usermaatre-setepenre Ramesses-meriamun.  Ramesses II was thus the despoiler of Solomon's temple in 925 BC, and not the Pharaoh of the Oppression and Exodus as is conventionally believed.

        Having reached this conclusion, we looked for evidence of Solomon's activities in Palestine during the time of the late 18th Dynasty and early 19th Dynasty in Egypt.  We came across the remains of an Egyptian-style shrine in Jerusalem which could have belonged to the palace of Pharaoh's Daughter – the principal wife of King Solomon.  We were also able to compare the mysterious Millo built by Solomon with the massive terrace structure on the eastern slopes of the City of David.  The Late Bronze Age, into which 'merchant prince' Solomon is now securely placed, provided us with the appropriate cultural setting for Israel's wealthiest ruler and his wide-reaching trading empire.  The cities and royal residences of LB IIA-B in Palestine were built of fine ashlar masonry befitting the 'Phoenician tradition' as described in Kings and Chronicles.  The literary tradition of Psalms would now be set in an era of great hymns and epic poetry, vividly represented in the literature of LBA Ugarit.  Akhenaten's 'Hymn to the Aten', so often closely compared to Psalm 104, would have been composed in Egypt when King David, the author of Psalm 104, ruled in Israel.  Without question, both culturally and historically, the Late Bronze Age best reflects the era of the rise and then artistic culmination of Israel's United Monarchy.

        We searched for a new signpost to guide us on our way.  We found it pointing to 'Tell-el-Amarna'.  Here was a very exacting test of our sense of direction, for the contemporary written documents found at that site are open far less to misinterpretation than dumb building stones.  When we read the correspondence from the city-state rulers of Palestine, we discovered a political situation which matched in detail the period of the Early Monarchy in Israel.  The Habiru of the Amarna Letters were the Hebrews under Saul and David and we had in our possession the actual tablets written by the first king of Israel.  Many of the characters whose exploits fill the pages of the books of Samuel then began to appear in the Letters.  Their names were camouflaged in the language of ancient Canaan, but when translated into their 'meaning' became exact equivalents of their Old Testament Hebrew counterparts.  So, from out of the mist of time we listened to the very words of Saul and Ishbaal as their letters were read out to Pharaoh in his royal palace.  We heard too about the deeds of King David as he pushed for control of the central hill country and relentlessly pressured the Philistine rulers of the coastal plain.  Other players in the dramatic story of David's rise to power wrote to Akhenaten, including Hadadezer of Aram-Zobah and Achish of Gath.  Several other bit-part actors turned up in the Letters, including Jesse (David's father), Joab (David's general), King Toi of Hamath and the Syrian army commander Shopak.  We were able to read reports of Saul's death in the Jezreel region and then, later, about the isolation of the Jebusite Jerusalem and the subsequent political rise of the city of Zion – the capital of David's Israelite kingdom.

        We took out our sextant and made sure of our chronological navigation by plotting the heavenly bodies, discovering that the near-sunset solar eclipse observed at Ugarit could only have taken place in 1012 BC.  In that same year the palace of Ugarit had been burnt to the ground and a report of its demise sent to Akhenaten.  The Amarna period must then have fallen in the last years of the eleventh century BC and not in the mid-fourteenth century as in the traditional chronology.  The biblical date for the first year of King David is around 1010 BC, so the New Chronology's placement of Akhenaten and Tutankhamun as contemporaries of the ancestral king of Israel was confirmed by astronomical retrocalculations.

        Setting off once more upon our journey back in time, we reached the period of the Israelite Conquest of the Promised Land.  Here we witnessed Joshua's destruction of Jericho in the Middle Bronze Age (NC - c. 1410 BC).  We unearthed a letter bearing the name of King Jabin of Hazor who died at the hands of the Israelites as they destroyed his mighty city.  The sacred temenos of the Ark of the Covenant at Shiloh was revealed with its cult objects and furniture.  We stood before the huge monolith erected by Joshua in front of the Temple of Baal-berith at Shechem.  Here it was that the Israelite tribes had pledged their allegiance to Yahweh and here, a century later, one thousand terrified refugees were burnt to death as King Abimelech put the great migdol temple to the torch.

        We then reached the time of Moses and the pharaoh who raised him up as a prince of Egypt.  This was achieved by locating the 13th Dynasty ruler Neferhotep I in the mid-sixteenth century BC – again by employing astronomical retrocalculations – this time using the Venus observations and month-length data found in the Enuma Anu Enlil texts of Mesopotamia.  We came across Artapanus who told us the story of Prince Moses and Pharaoh Khenephres whom we identified as Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV, the brother and successor of Neferhotep.  He was ruling Egypt when Moses fled into Sinai.  Decades later the now aged Moses was to return to Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Dudimose (Manetho's Tutimaos) having been instructed by his god Yahweh to lead his people out of Egypt.

        We were able to identify the store-city which the Israelites built as the sprawling MB IIA metropolis of Avaris, upon the ruins of which the later Ramesside capital of Pi-Ramesse was constructed.  We saw death pits with multiple, hasty burials.  We wondered if these could have any connection with the plague traditions of Exodus – especially when, immediately afterwards, the Asiatic population then residing at Avaris appears to have left en masse.  We further speculated that the new influx  of non-Egyptianised Asiatics who subsequently settled at Avaris were Manetho's 'people of obscure race' who came from the East and seized Egypt 'without striking a blow'.  Could these invaders have been the biblical Amalekites who fought with the Israelites as the latter entered Sinai?  (op.cit. pages 327-329)

Then, regarding Joseph, Rohl comes to the following conclusions:

The major and agricultural reforms undertaken during the late 12th Dynasty were the work of the greatest vizier of Egypt during the Middle Kingdom who is now identified as the patriarch Joseph.  (op. cit. page 351)

The elegant palace unearthed by the Austrian excavators at Tell ed-Daba, Area F, was originally erected as the residence for the vizier Joseph in the regional capital of Avaris – the headquarters of the delta known as the Department of the North.  (op. cit. page 358)

The pyramid tomb, discovered by Manfred Bietak and his team in Area F at Tell ed-Daba, was the original burial place of the patriarch/vizier Joseph (before his body was removed by Moses for reburial in the Promised Land).  The shattered limestone head and shoulders found in the tomb originally formed the upper part of a cult statue of Joseph, awarded to him by Amenemhat III for the Hebrew vizier's outstanding services to the Egyptian nation during the time of great trials and tribulations.  (op. cit. page 366)

2.  Paleontology and Intelligent Design

Before the middle of the 19th century it was common, even among scientists, to study nature within the framework of divine creation and to assume the uniqueness of mankind.  The concept of naturalistic evolution was held by a few scientists and philosophers long before this time, but it was not until Charles Darwin published his The Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871), that the theory of evolution began to rise to the position of prominence that it enjoys today.  The real question is: Does naturalistic evolution deserve such scientific allegiance?

Michael Denton's answer is, "No."  He is a biological researcher and medical doctor whose specialty is molecular biology.  He is not a Christian, so he is not interested in defending the doctrine of divine creation or the first chapter of Genesis.  In other words, his criticism of evolution is based, not on theology, but on science.  After evaluating the state of evolutionary thought he has come to the conclusion that, while microevolution has been well substantiated, macroevolution (grand scale evolution from primitive forms to man) is completely without scientific support.

Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory – the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process – have [sic] been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.  (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1985, page 345)

I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework.  (op.cit., p. 16)

The Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.  (op.cit., p. 358)

In recent decades the concept of "intelligent design" has turned into a movement among certain scientists.  They are aware that the long reign of evolutionary thought has been supported, not by evidence of macroevolution, but by naturalistic philosophical assumptions.  They write about "irreducible complexity" and the inadequacy of evolutionary processes to produce this complexity.  They opt for the simple (yet sound and profound) conclusion that nature requires an intelligent designer.  They have no religious axe to grind, but are simply trying to do good, honest science.  They are trying to let the evidence speak for itself, and are trying not to go beyond the evidence.  For an excellent introduction to this area, see Dembski and Kushiner's Signs of Intelligence (Brazos = Baker, 2001).

J.  Some Issues Needing Integration

Below are a few selected scientific disciplines with some questions for the Christian to ponder.  Each question has implication for certain Christian beliefs.

As we select our battlefields, we need to focus on those disagreements which relate to basic doctrines.  We need to re-study both the doctrine and the scientific assertion to make sure we fully understand exactly what each is claiming.  We also need to evaluate the underlying strength of each assertion:  the scriptural support for the doctrine and the evidence for the scientific assertion.  And as we harmonize the two views, we need to be careful to preserve both the integrity of our theology and of our science.

How well will we integrate these scientific issues with our theology?

Annotated Bibliography

Schaeffer, Francis A. No Final Conflict: The Bible without Error in All that It Affirms. InterVarsity Press, 1975

In this brief booklet Schaeffer stresses the importance of maintaining a high view of scripture and goes right to the heart of the issue of inerrancy, particularly science and Genesis 1-11. He deals with genealogies and chronology, the unity of Genesis, and what the Bible does and does not say about origins. Balanced and helpful – a good place to start.
 

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler &Adler, 1985

Calls Darwin's theory of evolution the "great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." Denton is a biological researcher who does not believe either in the supernatural nor in the Genesis record. He provides a detailed analysis of evolutionary thinking, concluding that macroevolution is completely without scientific support.
 

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961.

This is the book which began the popular resurgence of the current flood geology and young earth movement. Provides a detailed discussion of the biblical and geologic records. Argues for a short creation week and a universal cataclysmic flood which accounts for most of the current geologic stratification. "The fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure during the Flood, with the apparent sequences attributed not to evolution but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity" (p. 327)
 

Dembski, William A. and James M. Kushiner. Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. Brazos Press (Baker), 2001

A collection of fourteen articles explaining intelligent design. Many of the authors are leaders in this recent movement. The first half of the book is somewhat repetitive, but the second half is packed with sound scholarship demonstrating both the complexity of nature (especially at the biochemical level) and the appropriateness of inferring the presence of an intelligent designer. This effective challenge to macro-evolution is not coming from people with a Christian or religious bent, but from those who are honest enough to let the evidence speak for itself. "The opposition of design theorists to Darwinian theory rests in the first instance on strictly scientific grounds" (from Dembski's introduction).
 

Stoner, Don. A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You About Genesis. Schroeder, 1996. (Foreword by Hugh Ross)

A helpful discussion of the integration of science and theology. Stoner accepts an old earth and provides detailed replies to the various arguments offered for a young earth. He gives too little recognition to disagreements among scientists and to recent observations which raise serious questions about the big bang cosmology.
 

Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. NavPress, 1998.

Deals with questions arising out of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Ross's orientation is old earth and his goal is to "demonstrate that a literal reading of Genesis creation chapters integrates perfectly with the established scientific record." His biblical proof texts are often weak, but his ideas deserve consideration.
 

Rohl, David M. Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. Crown Publishers, 1995. (Originally published as A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History. Century Ltd., 1995)

A realignment of the sequence and dates of Egyptian dynasties with biblical history. Contrary to older schemes which place the exodus in the 18th or 19th dynasty, Rohl shifts the dynasties so that the exodus (1447) occurs at the end of the 13th dynasty. This scheme leads to historical verification of key Israelite events and figures surrounding the periods of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, the conquest, and the united kingdom.
 

Ratzsch, Del. Science and Its Limits. InterVarsity Press, 2000

A general discussion of the history, philosophy, and limitations of science from a Christian perspective.