—

← Back to Don Stewart FAQ List

Don Stewart :: Has Christianity Opposed the Advancement of Science?

As we conclude our introductory questions on the Bible and science it is necessary to address a common misconception: Bible believers are opposed to the advancement of science. It is a popular perception that those who believe the Bible and what it says about matters of science and nature are enemies of truth and scientific advancement. The late science writer Isaac Asimov stated:

With creation in the saddle American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses. We will inevitably recede into the backwaters of civilization.

Three past incidents are usually cited to show the Christians opposition to scientific advancement: the dispute of the church with Galileo, the creation/evolution debate between T.H. Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, and the infamous Scopes monkey trial.

Galileo

At the time of Galileo, (the 17th century), the common belief was that the earth was center of our solar system. Galileos use of the telescope brought conclusions that were based upon scientific observation. He taught that the sun, not the earth, was the immovable center of our solar system. This conclusion contradicted the accepted philosophical views of his day. But it is important to note, it did notcontradict what the Bible had said about the matter. Scientist James Reid explains the arguments used against Galileo.

It would not be fair to consider Galileos case without asking why the authorities of the day could use the Bible to support their arguments against him. The facts of the matter however, show that there werent many Biblical references used. Galileos enemies turned more to politics and the science of the day, than they did to the Bible. As indicated, they were worried more about upsetting the older “scientific” theories of the day (James Reid, Does Science Confront the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, pp. 44,45).

The churchs mistreatment of Galileo gave the perception that Christianity was against scientific advancement and Galileo is hailed today as a scientific martyr. Yet the problem was not with the Bible and science. Arthur Koestler writes:

The Galileo affair was an isolated, and in fact quite untypical, episode in the history of the relations between science and theology . . . But its dramatic circumstances, magnified all our of proportion, created a popular belief that science stood for freedom, the Church for oppression of thought (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, 1986 edition, London: Penguin Books, p. 533).

Huxley/Wilberforce

About a year after the publication of Charles Darwins book The Origin of Species, a confrontation took place that set the stage for the modern creation/evolution controversy. In June 1860, at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, a special meeting was held to discuss Darwins views.

Bishop Samuel Wilberforce addressed the scientific association and spoke against the theory of evolution while English biologist T. H. Huxley defended Darwin. For the last hundred years the story has been told how Huxley won the debate against the ignorant bishop. But this view has been challenged in recent years. It seems the bishop was not the ignorant and ill-informed individual that history has usually characterized him. After the debate Wilberforce wrote a critique on the Origin of Species which Darwin himself described as “uncommonly clever and which makes very good sense.”

Because there were no written accounts taken at the meeting any descriptions we have are from memories of those who attended. The story that circulated was of Huxleys brilliance and the bishops incompetence. Because of the way the incident was reported, many rejected the biblical position as being scientifically absurd. Within ten years, scientific opinion throughout the world had changed from supernatural creationism in favor of mindless evolution.

Scopes Trial

An incident occurred early in the twentieth century that furthered the rift between Christianity and the scientific community. In 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee, a young high school teacher named John Scopes was put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution. Scopes was defended by the famous Clarence Darrow while William Jennings Bryan argued the case for the state of Tennessee.

Evidence?

One of the pieces of evidence presented for the case for evolution was the tooth from Nebraska man. A molar found in Nebraska in 1922 was identified as having come from an important transitional form between man and his primate ancestors by at least four well-known scientists: H. Cook, H. F. Osborn, H. H. Wilder, and G. E. Smith. Osborn declared, on the day he first saw the tooth:

The instant your package arrived I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and said to myself: It looks one hundred percent anthropoid . . . It looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America has been found (cited by Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Nutley, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: 1969, p. 347).

However, in 1927 the molar was correctly identified as belonging to a pig:
The men from the museum also found more of the fossil material for which they were looking, and it turned out that the tooth of an animal which had previously been named Prosthennops. This was very embarrassing, because Prosthennops was a peccary, which is a type of pig (Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, p. 348).

Result

Unfortunately, Nebraska man was used as one of the “proofs” of evolution at the trial. Though the creationist position won in the courtroom, it was dealt a further blow in the eyes of the world. They perceived the church as persecuting a helpless biology teacher, as well as not accepting the clear evidence for evolution. Scientist Henry Morris sums up the result:

The bells had tolled for any scientific belief in special creation. The Scopes trial (1925) had ended in a nominal victory for the fundamentalists, with the teacher Scopes convicted for teaching evolution in the high school, contrary to Tennessee law. In the press, however, Clarence Darrow and his evolutionist colleagues had resoundingly defeated William Jennings Bryan and the creationists. Evolution henceforth was almost universally accepted as an established fact of modern science and special creation relegated to the limbo of curious beliefs of a former age (Henry Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 9).

Modern Science And Christianity

These three instances have blurred the truth that modern science arose in a Christian context. Near the end of the nineteenth century, Emil Dubois-Reymond, professor of medicine at the University of Berlin, said:

Modern science, paradoxical as it may sound, has to thank Christianity for its origin (cited by Eric Sauer, The King of the Earth, Palm Springs: Ronald N. Haynes Publishers, 1981, p. 86).

Scientist/theologian John Klotz writes:

It should be very evident that modern science could only have developed in the environment of the Judeo-Christian emphasis on the orderliness of creation. The gods of the many religions are erratic. They play cat and mouse with man. They tantalize him and change the rules. Their actions are not predictable, and consequently the universe is not regular and predictable (John Klotz, Studies in Creation, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985, p. 11).

The late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer concluded:

What we have to realize is that early modern science was started by those who lived in a consensus and setting of Christianity. A man like J. Robert Oppenheimer, for example, who was not a Christian, nevertheless understood this. He said that Christianity was needed to give birth to modern science [On Science and Culture Encounter, October 1962]. Christianity was necessary for the beginning of modern science for the simple reason that Christianity created a climate of thought which put men in a position to investigate the form of the universe . . . .

The early scientists also shared the outlook of Christianity in believing that there is a reasonable God, who has created a reasonable universe, and thus man, by use of his reason, could find out the universes form (Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason,Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 30,31).

Summary

Because people took the Bible seriously modern science and its scientific laws were formed. The belief that a reasonable God had created a universe of order birthed modern science. Scientists such as Newton, Pascal, and Faraday were creationists who believed the Creator had established laws for people and the natural world. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that Christianity opposes the advancement of scientific knowledge.

← Back to Don Stewart FAQ List

The Incredible Steven Weinberg (1933-2021) – Sixty Symbols

—

In my April 30, 2019 letter to Dr. Weinberg I asked him about Francis Schaeffer’s words “Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church”

April 30, 2019

Steven Weinberg
The University of Texas at Austin
Department of Physics
2515 Speedway Stop C1600
Austin, TX 78712-1192

Dear Dr. Weinberg,

I know after reading TO EXPLAIN THE WORLD that you are a not only a great scientist but also a very good science historian. Therefore, I am sure you have read about everything ever written about Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967), and I hope you enjoy this letter!!

I noticed in your book THIRD THOUGHTS in the 22nd chapter entitled “Writing About Science” that you stated:

Galileo said “It is the sun not the earth at rest.”

In the episode “The Scientific Age” in the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Francis Schaeffer asserted, “Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church….In 1609 Galileo began to use the newly invented telescope and what he saw and wrote about indicated that aristotle had been mistaken in his pronouncements about the makeup of the universe. Galileo was not the first to rely on experimental evidence. Danish Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) had come to similar conclusions from observation, but Galileo articulated his findings publicly in his lifetime and in his native tongue so that all could read what he wrote. Condemned by the Roman Inquisition in 1632, he was forced to recant, but his writings continued to testify not only that Copernicus was right, but also that Aristotle was wrong.

Both Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) have stressed that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview. Whitehead was a widely respected mathematician and philosopher, and Oppenheimer, after he became director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in 1947, wrote on a wide-range of subjects related to science, in addition to writing in his own field on the structure of the atom and atomic energy. As far as I know, neither of the two men were Christians; yet both were straightforward in acknowledging that modern science was born out of the Christian world-view.

Oppenheimer, for example, described this in an article, “On Science and Culture” in ENCOUNTER in October 1962.  In the Harvard University Lowell Lectures entitled “Science and the Modern World”(1925) Whitehead said that Christianity is the mother of modern science because of “the medieval insistence in the rationality of God.” With complete confidence “in the intelligible rationality of a personal being,” continued Whitehead, early scientists had an “inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its’ antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope.” In other words, because the early scientists believed that the world was created by a reasonable God, they were not surprised to discover that people could find out something true about nature and the universe in the basis of reason.

Below is the outline from the 27 min episode.

T h e

SCIENTIFIC AGE

I. Church Attacks on Copernican Science Were Philosophical

Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church.

II. Examples of Biblical Influence

A. Pascal’s work.

1. First successful barometer; great writing of French prose.

2. Understood Man’s uniqueness: Man could contemplate, and Man had value to God.

B. Newton

1. Speed of sound and gravity.

2. For Newton and the other early scientists, no problem concerning the why, because they began with the existence of a personal God who had created the universe.

C. Francis Bacon

1. Stressed careful observation and systematic collection of information.

2. Bacon and the other early scientists took the Bible seriously, including its teaching concerning history and the cosmos.

D. Faraday

1. Crowning discovery was the induction of the electric current.

2. As a Christian, believed God’s Creation is for all men to understand and enjoy, not just for a scientific elite.

III. Scientific Aspects of Biblical Influence

A. Oppenheimer and Whitehead: biblical foundations of scientific revolution.

B. Not all early scientists individually Christian, but all lived within Christian thought forms. This gave a base for science to continue and develop.

C. The contrast between Christian-based science and Chinese and Arab science.

D. Christian emphasis on an ordered Creation reflects nature of reality and is therefore acted upon in all cultures, regardless of what they say their world view is.

1. Einstein’s theory of relativity does not imply relative universe.

2. Man acts on assumption of order, whether he likes it or not.

3. Master idea of biblical science.

a) Uniformity of natural causes in an open system: cause and effect works, but God and Man not trapped in a process.

b) All that exists is not a total cosmic machine.

c) Human choices therefore have meaning and effect.

d) The cosmic machine and the machines people make therefore not a threat.

IV. Shift in Modern Science

A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.

B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.

1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.

2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.

C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.

1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

2. Extension of natural selection to society, politics and ethnics.

D. Natural selection and Nazi ideology.

E. The new authoritarianism: not the crudely dictatorial regimes of Hitler and Stalin. New regimes will be subtly manipulative, based on sophisticated arsenal of new techniques now available.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221

On the Shoulders of Giants: Steven Weinberg and the Quest to Explain the…

—

Steven Weinberg Discussion (1/8) – Richard Dawkins

—-

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? (2010) | Full Movie | Michael Hordern

——

The Bill Moyers Interview – Steven Weinberg

How Should We Then Live (1977) | Full Movie | Francis Schaeffer | Edith …
https://youtu.be/1IB3Qqj5M2k

Steven Weinberg Discussion (2/8) – Richard Dawkins

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!!

Steven Weinberg – Dreams of a Final Theory

—

Steven Weinberg Discussion (3/8) – Richard Dawkins

—

Steven Weinberg, Author

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 6 | The Scientific Age

—-

Steven Weinberg Discussion (4/8) – Richard Dawkins

I am grieved to hear of the death of Dr. Steven Weinberg who I have been familiar with since reading about him in 1979 in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? by Dr. C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer. I have really enjoyed reading his books and DREAMS OF A FINAL REALITY and TO EXPLAIN THE WORLD were two of my favorite!

C. Everett Koop

—-

Steven Weinberg Discussion (5/8) – Richard Dawkins

—

Francis Schaeffer : Reclaiming the World part 1, 2

The Atheism Tapes – Steven Weinberg [2/6]
https://youtu.be/3IZeQ3-ykc0

—

The Story of Francis and Edith Schaeffer

—

Steven Weinberg – What Makes the Universe Fascinating?

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

_________________

Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:

______________

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann,  Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Shelly Kagan, Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, Elizabeth Loftus,  Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow,  Yujin Nagasawa, Douglas Osheroff,   Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse,  Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver,  Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

____________________________

In  the 1st video below in the 50th clip in this series are his words. 

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

_________________________________

Steven Weinberg: To Explain the World

I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it… and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.

________

Related posts:

__