Concerning Scripture and Science

Generally speaking, there are four commonly recognized normative sources for Christian belief, each with varying levels of authority. In order, these are Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. In my view, science is a combination of reason and experience. What is the scientific method but experiencing phenomena and then reasoning about those experiences? In light of this, why can’t science influence our theology?

Of course, Scripture reigns supreme. All other forms of revelation must bend the knee to Scripture. Whenever tradition, reason, or experience directly contradict Scripture, Scripture wins without question or hesitation. For instance, Scripture says that Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, fed the five thousand, raised Lazarus from the dead, and himself rose from the dead. In these cases and many others, science gets to shut up and take a back seat.

But in other cases, science actually informs our interpretation of Scripture. Just as we can use all or part of Scripture to self-authenticate and interpret other parts of Scripture, we can use one source of revelation to interpret other sources of revelation.

We all instinctively do this. For example, in some places, Scripture refers to the four corners of the earth. If we read these references while locked in a room with no capacity for reason and no opportunity for experience/observation, we would be right to assume that the earth literally has corners and is therefore flat.

But we’re not locked in a box. We can observe the world around us and reason through those observations. And because our reason and experience (i.e. science) strongly suggest that the earth is a sphere, we rightly take a second look at those passages in Scripture, hopefully concluding that Scripture isn’t trying to make any claims about the shape of the earth. Hence, in this example, science changes how we read Scripture.

Now that’s a simplistic example to which only those crazy flat-earthers would object. But there are more controversial contexts where this same principle applies. Take the creation account in Genesis. The most plain reading of Genesis 1 will likely have you concluding that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour periods.

But if you think that scientific findings about the age of the earth are reliable, you might take another look at the creation account. And then you might notice that Genesis 1 reads a lot like a poem with its repetition of “there was morning and there was evening” and “God saw that it was good.” Additionally, you might notice that the text refers to morning and evening before God created the sun, which at the very least allows that the word “day” does not necessarily refer to the physical 24-hour process of the earth’s rotation. And so, because of science, you might reconsider your conclusion that God created in six literal days.

Or maybe not. Perhaps it’s because you don’t find the scientific evidence convincing. Maybe it’s because you think reading the creation account as more of a poem is too much of a stretch. But hopefully it’s not because you absolutely refuse to accept science as a form of revelation. In some ways, science is the most exciting and dynamic form of revelation because we are constantly growing in our ability to understand the world God created. It would be a tragedy to neglect it. If the heavens declare the glory of God and his invisible attributes are clearly seen in nature, it sure would be a shame to miss out on that.