"Do you have to flush your brain down the loo to be a

Christian?"
Rev Dr Rob Brennan Ph.D., M. Sc., B. Sc., B. Th., B. A.(Hon). 2014
The answer is definitely no! The purpose of this session is give people confidence to explore to
the issues.
The outline of this session is
1. Science and Christianity in conflict, really or is this just a myth?
2. How do science and religion really relate?
3. Laws of Nature or Acts of God
4. How do I respond?
5. Creation and evolution as an example of the range of opinions held

1. Science and Christianity in conflict, really or is this just a myth?

What is your reactions to the idea of conflict?

White and Draper vigorously promoted the idea in their books even though they are full of half
truths and misrepresentations. Both are still readily available. The History of the Conflict
between Science and Religion is still in print. Persistent examples include;
Columbus against every one else who believed the world was flat Wrong: all serious scholars
believed world was round. The diameter was the question Columbus doing a fiddle on figures He
believe the circumference of the earth was 4000km his opponents believed it was orders of
magnitude larger. It is actually around 40,000km. (he always believed he had found India, he
was a lousy navigator)
Galileo subjected to the inquisition for saying the earth goes around the sun. Wrong: putting
the words of the Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicico (the fool), insulting the pope. Who
was a bit earlier a Cardinal Maffeo Barberini who supported of Galileo. Galileo was a hot head
and spoke and wrote rashly. He did have a wise mentor who had recently died who would have
told him to have been more careful.
Darwin lost his faith because of his evolutionary theory. Wrong: Darwin lost his faith following
the death of his father and the death of his beloved nine-year-old daughter Annie. He actually
was in training to be a minister went asked to go on the Beagle.
2. How do Science and religion really relate?
There exist many overviews of the dialogue at a variety of academic levels. Lay explanations of
science for theologians and lay theology for scientists are common. Many scholars have
commented on the shape the dialogue takes or should take. Barbour has been influential in
offering four ways of understanding the interaction between science and religion: conflict,
independence, dialogue and integration. The main difficulty is that like any area that actually
involves actual humans the interactions are more complex. Even so Barbours categories have
been regularly used to describe the various shapes the dialogue takes.
In spite of Barbour and others championing conciliatory models for the shape of the dialogue,
the public extremes endure. Christian creationism at one end and materialistic atheism each
view the other as the root of all evil. Irrespective of the relative academic merits there continues
vociferous public and academic debate in North Americas, culture wars. A lot of people have a
lot invested in the conflict approach. One example told is of a a Chinese paleontologist who in
the USA reported on a find which he claimed would make everyone rethink what they knew
about evolution. He was greeted with stony silence. Later he observed, "I think I have worked it
out. In My country you are allowed to criticize evolution but not the government, but here in
America you can criticize the government but not evolution."

There are ongoing attempts at dialogue encompassing these extremes. However, more
conciliatory examples of dialogue can be found in other areas. There has been useful interaction
between science and theology as they seek to understand how science does science and
theology does theology. Another area where interaction has developed a richly interactive field of
study in its own right involves theology, science and ethics The involvement of theology as an
external moral compass seems indispensable for public interest in relation to scientific research,
though this remains open to considerable debate. This particularly important since sciences
supposed moral neutrality and its history as a record of human progress requires serious
reconsideration as demonstrated by heavy scientific involvement in Nazi Germany and the cold
war.1 As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In terms of Barbours four categories of interaction conflict, independence, dialogue and
integration all are present, though it would be fair to say that discussions between theology
and cosmology show more dialogue and integration whereas those between theology and the
life sciences show more conflict and independence. While there are instances where common
ground can be identified such as natural selection favouring the development of ethical or
theological notions such as altruism, 2 there remain apparent impasses or contradictions such as
the theological notion of eternity versus the heat death of the universe. 3
Because there are a range of ways science and faith relate there is also no uniformity in what
beliefs are held by scientists. Brown and Case-winters have surveyed working scientists and
found belief systems ranging from biblical fundamentalism through mainstream Christianity,
liberal, agnostic and atheism. The spread is little different to the spread of beliefs in the general
population. More than that the range has changed little in the century of science, the twentieth.
Brown particularly shows among scientists that the range of contemporary beliefs remains
similar to the range held in 1910. 4 As Browns results have been confirmed it has been
suggested that little has changed in the debate during the last century, whether it be due to
lack of critical self-analysis; failure to resolve key issues, or; failure of solutions to gain wide
support or interest. What seems to happen is that many scientists collect a grab bag full of
beliefs all together, not all of them are carefully examined or necessarily compatible with each
other. That is like most people.
So what is going on? I would suggest that one of the most important, though not the easiest way
to unpack it all is to examine how we got to where we are today. that means carefully looking at
our assumptions to see if they are actually correct.
Peter Harrison, Prof of Philosophy at Queensland Uni, formerly at Oxford and member of UCA
church in Brisbane, notes that Religion meant personal faith up till mid-18 th century, only later
becoming used to describe a body of beliefs. Is Confucianism a religion? Is a question western
people have never been able to answer and east never able to ask.
Science has only been called science since about the same time. Before that it was called
natural philosophy. But note major differences. Astronomy and Mathematics were studied
together with Music in Galileos day. Biology was not studied at university and considered merely
a branch of farming
One thing people seem to take for granted is the notion of the laws of nature. It is important to
see how the notion developed, because how they are understood affects how we understand
miracles and divine inspiration and religious experience.

1 J. Appleby, L. Hunt, and M. Jacob, Telling the Truth About History (London: Norton, 1994). 160-161
2 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Viii. Dawkins would himself reject
that there was any theological implication of this effect.

3 Polkinghorne, Science and Christian Belief. 162-170.

4 C. Mackenzie Brown, "The Conflict between Religion and Science in Light of the Patterns of

Religious Belief among

Scientists," Zygon 38, no. 3 (2003). A. Case-Winter, "The Question of God in an Age of Science: Constructions of Reality and
Ultimate Reality in Theology and Science," Zygon 32, no. 3 (1997); E. J. Larson and L. Witham, "Scientists Are Still Keeping
the Faith," Nature 386, no. April (1997).

3. Laws of Nature or Acts of God

Middle ages:
Renaissance:
Reformation:

Newton:
Post Newton:

Pre-Darwin:

Darwin:

how the world works is a mystery known only to the Mind of God. Aspects of
Nature that are known or understood are there to teach us about salvation or
cause us to marvel and worship God.
many of the illustrations handed down over the years are total rubbish eg;
pelican feeding chicks from bleeding chest and the phoenix
Calvin and two books. The book of Gods word (Bible) and the Book of Nature.
Both revealing something about the nature of God. Both books considered
ordered and reliable. Harrison both books read and interpreted in similar
fashion.
Nature became considered an orderly object of study to aid in the understanding
of God. Most natural philosophers were men of God.
Not only is nature orderly but all things in the heavens and on earth follow
predictable laws and he demonstrated them. Laws of God in Nature sustained
by God at all times.
Laws of God in Nature to Laws of Nature. Continuing miracle or something
about how the world is. God getting left out of discussion of nature. If God is the
perfect architect then the laws in creation can be no less than perfect or God
would not be God. (Whoops we will just forget about the incarnation for a while,
God becoming something much less than God for our sake) It is not surprising
that Newton and many others at time did not like the idea of incarnation.
If God is perfect and the perfect Creator then species will be perfected adapted
to their environments. No changes, no extinctions no problems. Whoops, fossils.
With the industrial revolution a lot more Coal mined, more rock, particularly
limestone quarried and finds of dinosaurs extinct and tropical animal remains in
non-tropical UK. Whoops problems.
Change does occur. Implication for some creation is not perfect then God is not
perfect and God cant be less than perfect. Confusion follows in some circles.
Darwin was actually worried about the confusion.

Turn back to the incarnation. Does God always choose to be perfect? What definition of
perfection are you going to use. Yours, mine or Gods. God created the world and we are told it
was good, but that it is no longer that way. The world created for Gods pleasure and we are
designed to enjoy it. God acts in the world in Jesus for our benefit. Being perfect in action is
subject to God acting to save us so that we might know God.

4. OUR RESPONSE:
So what can you or I do as lay people. Firstly remember that no one is an expert in all things. No
matter how big a name the person speaking is, if they are not trained in that field they may know
no more than you or I. There is more than one theologian who publicly embarrass themselves
when they talk nonsense about science and more than one high profile new atheist who seem to
be proud of their ignorance about Christianity while simultaneously mocking it.
So what can we do?
1. Genuine desire to seek the truth.
2. Be open and aware of criticism and be willing to respond as well as to alter opinion on
evidence. Humbly listen and seek to understand the other point of view.
3. Be aware of peoples' assumptions.
For example
a. Extreme creationists will assume and argue from the assumption that the Bible is
the inspired and hence infallible word of God. This is at the least a position that
has to be argued for with Non-Christians.
b. Extreme Neo-Darwinians will assume it has to be that way and not seriously
question why they believe it to be so. Too often they assume that gaps in their
knowledge will eventually be filled without examining the difficulties and
implausibility of some solutions to problems.
c. Science and Religion are necessarily in conflict. The fact is Science as we know it
only developed in a Christian culture as shown here.
d. That Science explains away the need for God. The truth is Modern Science
developed by avoiding theological and metaphysical questions. This was at the
urging of Francis Bacon in the 1700s who by persuasion and force of personality
led Scientists to describe things as they were and how they worked rather than
the big why questions.
4. Be aware of the history.
e. Scientists a usually painfully unaware of their real history except in a very short
and overly glorified manner. (in my physics course all of the history of science was
little more than 4 pages in an short 1/2 semester optics course.) It is the myth of
Scientific progress that everything always gets better and leads to better
understandings. In reality it is a lot more complex, with mistakes, personalities and
politics getting in the way.
f. Christians are often unaware of the history of interpretation of Genesis. Among
others of their period, Augustine and Origen, two leading figures of the early
church both took Genesis 1 as figurative (or for our benefit) rather than literal.
Both are significant as many Christian were formulated by these. The doctrine
inspiration and infallibility of Scripture can be traced to Augustine! But Augustine
believed creation was instantaneous! The unfolding in six days in Genesis was
meant to teach us something.
5. Be aware of limitations to theories. Serious Scientists are usually very open to the
limitations of their theories. In documentaries eg; BBC, Attenborough, Sagan, what
scientists will say is possible or probable often is translated as we know for sure.
6. Seek the Truth and be prepared to reexamine your assumptions
7. Don't be upset if there seems to be no answer. I don't know or I don't understand are far
better and honest answers than doggedly sticking to an opinion that has major holes in it.
MOST IMPORTANT
The world created for Gods pleasure and we are designed to enjoy it. God acts in the world in
Jesus for our benefit. Being perfect in action is subject to God acting to save us so that we might
know God.

Never be afraid to seek the truth and consider all the facts.
5. Creation and evolution as an example of the range of opinions held
So what are the positions: ROUGHLY 6 CURRENTLY HELD POSITIONS
1. Extreme creationism (In 6 days) the Bible says it that settles it Gish, Morris, Creation
Science
2. Moderate creationism Evolution not possible, open to enquiry, Most physical Scientists
(80-90%), St Augustine
3. Creation with Theistic Evolution It was created and this was how God did it. Many
theologians. Many Life Scientists with faith.
4. Intelligent design.
5. Neo-Darwinian Evolution Gould, most life Sciences
6. Extreme Neo Darwinism God does not come into it - Dawkins, Denett
7. Beats me! most people while at first trying to examine the arguments.
All positions are being seriously argued. (eg; CTNS conference in California in 2000) This is
different from a decade before when there would be no mention of God in any academic
literature or merely derisive comments.
Something like 80-90% of physical scientists do not accept evolution. Why I have doubts about
Evolution;
1. Standard scientific theories in conflict
Geology says Earth 4.5 billion years old
Universe (by ages of stars in Galactic clusters) 12.5-14 Billion years.
Universe by first estimate of Big Bang theory 1.5-2.5 Billion years. (Whoops)
Formation of the solar system about the 4-5 billion year mark but asteroid impacts
would have repeatedly wiped out life up until about a million years ago. (Whoops)
Evolution requires change over millions or billions of years the longer the better.
2. Gaps in Fossil Record - Transitional forms for complex animals dont exist. A late note
weakens this a bit as many seem to be turning up.
3. Absence of good mutations
4. Not testable