The Bible and Science

SERMON TOPIC: SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE

PROCESSIONAL HYMN: #26 HOLY, HOLY, HOLY

CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER:
Almighty and eternal God, who searchest the hearts of men: We acknowledge and confess that we have sinned against thee in thought and deed, and that we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. Forgive us our transgressions and help us to amend our ways, and of thine eternal goodness direct what we shall be, so that we may henceforth walk in the way of thy commandments, and do those things which are worthy in thy sight, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

RESPONSIVE READING: #55 O LORD, HOW MAJESTIC IS THY NAME!

SCRIPTURE READING: ROMANS 12

HYMN OF PREPARATION: #133 BREATHE ON ME, BREATH OF GOD

HYMN OF DEDICATION: #148 BRIGHTLY BEAMS OUR FATHER'S MERCY

When a popular speaker wants to give authority to what he says, he introduces his statement with the words, "Science say", and then his hearers sit up and listen because they respect the authority of Science.

When a preacher wants to give authority to what he says, he introduces his statements with the words, "the Bible says", and his hearers sit up and listen because they respect the authority of the Bible.

Do you agree with both of these statements, or do you find yourself raising some questions about one or the other? When we think about the authority of the Bible and the authority of Science, is the situation the same today as it was fifty years ago? Was authority of the bible more generally accepted one-hundred years ago than it is now?

When what "Science says" contradicts or contrasts, with what the "Bible says", then we hearers are confused. Must we reject the one authority and hold to the other, if so, which shall we hold on to? Or can we hold on to both authorities? The problem of the Bible and Science is a real one to many people. It is one that cannot be lightly shoved aside, it deserves careful thinking.

Before we can hope to know what Science is; and before we can claim to state what "the Bible says", we must understand what Science is and what the Bible is. Let us look first at what Science is.

In the simplest and broadest sense of the word, science means knowledge. The dictionary defines science as "knowledge obtained by study and practice." It is often defined as organized, systemized knowledge.

The Science I have been speaking of is Science with a capitol"S" if we break it down to it's various disciplines and use a small "s", we can speak of the sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. All of these sciences represent systematized knowledge within a limited area, BUT we cannot add them together to make one Science (capitol"S"). We can refer to certain men as scientist, and we can quote scientists as authorities. But Science with a capitol "S" is an abstraction, that is it has no application, and we are not quoting anybody when we say "Science says". What I'm trying to say is let us be careful to identify the authority we refer to. We most certainly ought to respect the authority of a scientist in his own field of work. An astronomer is one who has studied the stars and can tell us about them, but he cannot speak with authority about animals; because they belong to the field of zoology. The range of knowledge is to great for one man to be a specialist in every field, and he should not be quoted as an authority when he speaks outside his own field. We jokingly say an expert is anyone fifty miles from home. But we do listen to scientists when they speak because we feel that these are the men that know. The scientists, working in their various fields, have greatly increased and broadened our knowledge of the world around us. Through the efforts of the scientists we know about the planets and the stars and the vast reaches of space. We understand as men have never understood before, the atmosphere of the earth and what causes the changes in weather. The earth's crust and the oceans, lakes, and rivers have been explored, measured, and described. Through the study of living forms we have available a vast store of information about plants and animals and the microscopic forms that work both great benefit and harm to human beings. And this information, we feel, is considered reliable, WHY? Because the scientist agree upon it.

How is this knowledge arrived at? What methods do scientist use to reach results that are assured and can be relied on? The first step in the scientific method is observation. Modern science is based on the belief that the only way to discover the truth is to look at the facts. If you want to know whether palm trees grow in Scotland, you will not find the answer by studying the writings of Aristotle or Moses. You will go to Scotland and see for yourself, or you will read the report of some reliable observer who has been there.

Scientist wants their observations to be firsthand, impersonal, and unprejudiced. No scientific journal would accept a report in these words:--"There are palm trees in Scotland. I did not see them myself but a real estate agent who was trying to sell me a house lot said there was a beautiful grove of palm on it."

Accurate description is a characteristic of scientific method. To be scientific the report would have to be something like this--"The tree measured fifty feet high, and the trunk rose without branches for the first thirty-five feet. The trunk was eighteen inches in diameter at the base and it had fan shaped leaves that resemble the palm of the human hand."

Accurate observation is the first step. Scientists try to make their descriptions complete by gathering all the facts they can, but the mere gathering of facts is not enough. The facts must be organized, and as new facts are gathered they must be related to what is already known.

In religion we respect tradition and authority from the past, especially as this authority comes to us in Scripture, in science we begin with doubting tradition and questioning authority, we demand facts supported by observation.

Scientific observation must always be an experience that can be shared, but religious experience is intensely personal. The experience of Paul on the road to Damascus is an event of inescapable importance to the beginnings of Christian Religion, but it was an experience that came to Paul alone. The men who were with him did not share the experience, and no other person---on the Damascus road or any other road---has exactly duplicated the experience.

The conduct of experiments is a feature which completely separates scientific from religious method. You cannot set up an experiment in religion. Religion is a matter of individual, personal relationships, and in these relationships the controlled condition of experiment are impossible. When we attempt to include God in the experiment the situation becomes silly.

If we drive around the country side in the spring, we might see signs that have captions such as this--"this field has been sprayed with Bloggin Fertilizer. Watch for a bumper crop." But we never see signs that say---"This field is being prayed for regularly by St. Mark's Church. Watch for a bumper crop."

It would seem from what has been said that scientific method and religious method are so different that we cannot hold them together, but we must remember that it was the Christian civilization that gave birth to the natural sciences.

Christian civilization garnered the philosophy and the geometry of Greece, the astronomy of the whole ancient and medieval worlds, the arithmetic and algebra of the Indians and Arabs, as well as the religion and ethics of the Hebrews. Natural science and it's offspring technology and medicine are the gifts of Christian civilization to mankind.

The whole progress of science is based on a community in which men share their discoveries with one another, and respect and cooperate with one another.

Lets turn our thoughts to the bible now.

The Bible is the Holy Scripture of the Christian Religion. More exactly, we should say the Bible represents the Holy Scripture of the Hebrew-Christian tradition. The Old Testament shared by both Jews and Christians and the New Testament accepted by CHristians alone. We as Christians can say that is "our" holy book, the basis of our faith.

The words and the ideas of the bible are woven so intimately into our language and thought that we speak biblical words and express biblical ideas without recognizing their orifin. Expressions like--"salt of the earth"--"Shinning lights"--"The skin of our teeth"---"Spare the rod spoil the child"--"Pride goeth before a fall"--"The first shall be last".

These are famaliar quotations but when we look at the whole of the Bible, we discover that great areas of the Bible are totally unknown to us. Although we don't do it deliberately we select and choose the parts of the Bible that appeal to us and fill our needs. Scriptures read in church service, selections for church school lessons, passages listed in devotional books, and magazines and literary references to biblical events and characters sets the limits of ur aquaintance with the Bible.

Whole books could be dropped out of the printed Bible, and we"the men in the pew" would not know it for years. How long has it been since you read a chapter in Chronicles or Leviticus? Off-hand could you suggest an idea that the book of Obadiah contributed to our religious knowledge? Oh yes, we know about Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Paul. But who was Abimelech or Ishbosheth or Zerubbabel?

The Bible has many rules and regulation,if we tried to obey all the rules and regulations laid down in the Bible, we would be hampered and confused. Some of the rules we choose to hold up as guides to right conduct, and other rules we choose to ignore. For example Christians today are convinced that the food laws of the Old Testament were given for the ancient Jew only and so are not binding on us today. Other laws are dismissed as "ceremonial" and generally ignored.

In the Christian church today women play an active and public role in violation of the rules Paul laid down for the early Church. Paul decreed that women must keep their heads covered when they pray (1 Corinthians 11-5) and he preferred them not to pray in public. He also said they should keep silent in church, and if there is anything they desire to know they should ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a women to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

So as you see---our familiarity with selected parts of the Bible causes us to overlook the strangeness of other parts. The people who wrote and experienced these events lived long ago and far away in a land utterly different from ours today.

Now before we go any farther and lest you get the wrong opinion---I believe in the Bible, and I believe that it is possible for a Christian today to hold to the Bible and to modern science.

The biblical writers held ideas about time and space completely different from the ideas held be educated persons today. Scientists today estimate the age of the earth in billions of years while biblical writers thought in terms of only a few thousand years.

The simplest lessons in science teach that the earth is a sphere which rotates on it's axis and revolves around the sun. In the Bible the earth is pictured as a flat disc. The earth, with hollow space under it, floats on water. Over the earth stretches the sky, separating earth from heavens. God dwells in heaven, but on occassion he comes down to earth--as when he talked to Adam or NOah or extended a ladder down to Jacob.

If we turn to the New Testament we find the same "three story universe", of the flat earth with heaven above and hell (Sheol or the pit) underneath. John writing in the book of Revelations, described how he could look through an open door and see the throne of God in Heaven. He says a battle was fought in Heaven; and when Satan and his angels were defeated, they were thrown sown from heaven to earth. (Rev. 12: 7-9). They fought on earth, and when they were defeated there, Satan was bound with a chain and thrown down through a hole into the pit, and the hole was shut and sealed over him (Rev. 20:1-3). The defeat of Satan is no less true because the Biblical account of the earth differs with that of science today.

Medical science has made great progress within the last hundred years in discovering the causes of disease and in devising the causes of disease and in devising the means of preventing and curing disease. No one today would want to wipe out the benefits of medical science, and no one would want to go back to biblical methods of dealing with disease. Yet we marvel at some of the biblical cures.

While the children of Israel were crossing the wilderness they encountered snakes so poisonous that their bite cause painful inflammation and death. As a cure Moses made a serpent of bronze and set it up on a pole in the middle of camp. After that a person who had been bitten by a snake need only look at the bronze serpent and be cured. (Numbers 21:4-9)

Naaman was cured of leprosy when he took baths in the river Jordan, as prescribed by the prophet Elisha.

Mental disturbances were believed cause by demons that took possession of a man. One day when Jesus and his disciples landed on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, a raving maniac rushed down the shore toward them. The man was cured when Jesus ordered demons out of him into a nearby herd of swine.

A more interesting case of mental disturbance is that of Saul, the first king of Israel. Saul was a promising young man, physically big and strong; but he was not capable of handling the responsibilities laid on him by the kingship. Often he found his prestige rivaled by someone else. First is was Samuel, then Jonathan and then David. Saul like David, but the young man's popularity was more than Saul could take. He became jealous, suspicious, andfearful so that he distrusted his friends, and his own family. In a moment of violence he threw a spear at David, who was playing harp for him. A person who understands psychology can see here the symptoms of progressive break-down, but the biblical historian does not see it that way. The whole experience is explained in a sentence. "Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him." (1 Samuel 16:14) Notice here also that a Spirit capitol"S" from the lord departed and a spirit small "s" from the Lord tormented him. Would we hold this second spirit being from the Lord today?

There are many problems of conduct in the Bible, let's look at two in closing.

If the apostle Paul had lived in the twentieth century, he might have been arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon and inflicting serious injury. The "deadly weapon" was a curse, and the "serious injury" was blindness. The victim was a man named Elymas who rivaled Paul for the favor of the governor, Serguis Paulus. When Elymas tried to resist Paul's appeal to the governor, Paul denounced him and cursed him so that " mist and darkness fell upon him" and he was blind (Acts 13:7-11). You may say that Elymas was an opponent of the truth, but nevertheless the great apostle made a sorry spectacle of himself in the attack on his opponent.

Let's look at one event in the life of Jesus as it might be seen through the eyes of a Hindu or Buddist. It is recorded that Jesus and his disciples were walking from Bethany to Jerusalem. Jesus saw a fig tree, and the sight of the tree made him think how good it would be to pick some figs and eat them. But it was not the season for figs, so when Jesus came to the tree, he found nothing on it but leaves. He was so disappointed he he cursed the tree and said, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." When the disciples came by the next day "they saw the fig tree withered away to it's roots." (Mark 11: 12-14) A pretty childish action, if you were to ask the Buddhist.

We can of course explain the story of the barren fig tree. From what we know of the character of Jesus we can be sure he did not strike out peevishly and destroy the tree because it did not favor him with fruit. Perhaps he condemned the tree to illustrate the fact that the tree like some people put up a false front. And perhaps a story Jesus told about a fig tree as an illustration got into the record falsely as something he had done to a fig tree.

Interpretation is important throughout the Bible. It is interpretation that distinguishes between the ethical and trivial in biblical laws. By interpretation we see the biblical characters in proper perspective, and we see when we should follow their example and when we ought to be warned by their faults. When we claim to take the Bible "just as it is written", we are following the "common sense interpretation", that does not include thought and study. Let us be very hesitant in using the phrase, "the Bible says",---it takes careful and prayerful study to interpret correctly the message of the Bible.

And having read, studied, and interpreted the Bible----remember "it is better to be a sermon than to preach one."

Let us pray

Almighty God, giver of every good and perfect gift: teach us to render unto thee all that we have and all that we are, that we may praise thee, not with our lips only, but with our whole loves, turning the duties, the sorrows, and the joys of all our days into a living sacrifice unto thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen

1962