Do faith in God and science contradict?

God has blown on general laws in connection with Christian faith, for resurrection is certainly no general law. Christianity is based on resurrection, yet certainly resurrection is not the natural consequence of death. The general way in nature is all well, but Christianity is not nature. So science can neither explain nor contradict Christianity.

The Scriptures of course are not given to teach us science, but on the other hand true science will never contradict the Scriptures when these are rightly understood. It must, however, be remembered on the one hand that a wrong construction may be put on the meaning of Scripture, and on the other many things have been asserted by scientific men to be facts, which later on have been found not to be so, while as to deductions, many put forward with the greatest confidence have been found false.

Modernism has tried to prove that Science contradicts the Bible, and that therefore the Bible is unreliable. The answer is, that true science never contradicts the Bible, for God is the Author of them both. His is the work of creation, and His is the work of revelation through His Holy Word.

Theories, unproved guesses of men of science, may and often do contradict the Word of God, but as soon as fresh light is thrown upon the point in question,it invariably is found that the Bible is right, and the theories are seen to richly deserve the name the Apostle Paul describes them by, as “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim. 6:20). The more true science is known the better is it for the Bible. The more the Bible is known, the better is it for science.

Of course the Bible does not set out to furnish scientific information, but to teach spiritual truths and lessons. At the same time when the Bible does touch science in any way, it is always correct

Here is one bit of revelation: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” Whose word? The word of God. In this particular we believe that God is. We own Him as Creator. Faith quietly rests when science is in turmoil.

Either of these theories sufficiently meets the supposed difficulty, and shows that God in His works does not clash with God in His word, though His word was never intended to teach science.

That the creation account is unscientific and in clash with the discoveries of modern science is one of the common statements. It has, however, no foundation whatever. The proofs that there is no error in the account of creation as revealed in the first chapter of Genesis have been furnished by the investigation of science. The order of creation as given in the first chapter is the order, which, after years of searching--the most laborious searching--science has discovered. Over and over again science has with its guesses and speculations been forced to bow in submission before the simple and brief description of the creation in God's Word. There is no clash between the Bible and the results of true scientific research. Geology, astronomy, and other sciences have had to retrace their steps more than once and acknowledge their mistake; the first chapter of Genesis will never have to do that.

1888 112 We hear a good deal in these days about the conciliation of science and faith —, of aids to faith. One attempts to prove that scripture is really scientific, and so on, but is not all this based upon a delusion? If we have a revelation from God, what does it matter whether science accords with it or not? If it do not, then so much the worse for science. But even pious men, who really believe the word of God, are often so much afraid of the fetish of science, that they make all haste to prove that the Bible is really, if those great of "light and leading" would only graciously allow it, the humble handmaid of science.

Now all this kind of thing will not do: the evidences of a revelation are altogether apart from science. 'He that does His will shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God." "He that believes has the witness in himself." And if (as we KNOW is the truth) the Son of God has been in this world, that one transcendent fact dominates everything, and claims my immediate and absolute surrender. When once I believe this, science, marvellous as are its achievements, is after all a very small thing. It may be admirable for this life (though it be questionable how far torpedoes, for instance, are an unmixed advantage), yet it is only for this life; and the supreme fact of the incarnation and atonement of the blessed Son of God, even my apprehension of it, and bowed belief in it, and contrition of heart resulting from this belief, become the only important things. By faith we KNOW that the Son of God has come, and we are not careful to answer our opponents as to all that they allege, sometimes honestly, sometimes captiously, against the word of God, for that there are immense, perhaps inexplicable, difficulties in the Bible, no one can doubt. But the blessed book does not teach science. It is meant for the heart and the conscience.

It is notorious, on the other hand, that links are wanting in scientific processes. Dare any one affirm that were they all known and applied, science and the Bible would still be at variance? It is conceivable at least that the whole system of geological and physiological theory may have to be recast. Perhaps then fuller accord will be found between the Bible and science than at present obtains. But whether it be so or not, it can make no difference to the christian; for he rests upon the word of the living God, Who cannot lie. R. Beacon. Jr.

The believer knows beforehand that theoretic conclusions wherever sound must fall in with the sentence of inspiration. The work of the six days has little if anything to do with geology. There may be a measure of analogy between the work of the third, fifth, and sixth days, and certain of the alleged antecedent geologic periods which the Bible passes over silently as being outside its range and object, while room is left for them all in vers. 1 and 2. But the effort to force the days, whether those three or all six, into a scriptural authority for the successive ages of geology is mere illusion. If it be a harmless use of geology, it is anything but reverence for God's word or intelligence in it. That there are discrepancies between the record and any facts certainly ascertained, neither geology proves, nor any of the sciences still more sure and mature. But he who is assured of revealed truth can afford to hear all that experts assert, even when based on a partial induction of facts, as is not seldom the case. If, outside scripture, there is nothing a believer has to contend for; if scripture speaks, he believes, no matter what science declares to the contrary; if science confirms it, so much the better for science. Assuredly God's word needs no imprimatur from men.

If one appealed to any branch of physical science as to the first day, he could get no clear answer. Geology has confessedly, nothing to say. What can astronomy or optics do more? Science, as such, leaves out God — science, not scientific men, many of the greatest of whom have been true-hearted believers. Science, in itself, knows nothing of the power that originated, ignores the First Cause, and shirks ordinarily even the final causes which might summon heed to a first cause. It occupies itself with an established order in the world and with secondary causes, especially those at work before men's eyes or probably deducible from experience. The peril for the unwary is obvious, and real, and notorious. It would be much less if science were honest enough to acknowledge its ignorance of what is beyond its sphere. But often its interpreter says "There is not," where logically and morally he is entitled only to say, "I know not." This is not merely audacity without warrant, but sin of the worst kind. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." It is exactly where science finds itself confessedly stopped by a blind wall that scripture proclaims the truth from God. As He knows, so He revealed as far as in His wisdom and goodness He saw fit. "And God said, Light be: and light was. And God saw the light that [it was] good; and God divided between the light and the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one (or, first) day" (vers. 3-5).

Principal Griffith-Jones speaks of the Bible as a text-book of astronomy and physics. It is no such thing. It teaches what is necessary for man. It never contradicts true science, but it does challenge what Paul called with withering scorn, “science falsely so called” (1 Tim 6:20).

That the sense just given to the inspired account of creation is unforced and exact, it would require hardihood to question; so it would to deny the looseness of the rationalistic interpretation, inconsistent as it also is with itself and with facts, and thus exhibiting the usual faults of what is wholly misunderstood. I advocate no stooping to a barely admissible meaning, nor call in the wisdom of the world to ascertain the force of scripture. The believer need neither court nor fear human science. Nowhere however has a single fact of geology been proved to be at variance with the words of Moses: those who affirm it have only exposed themselves, whether they attack or apologise for Gen. 1:1-3.