Those who have a commitment to a theological view, but, because of education and experience, take the scientific enterprise seriously, should consider the problem of compatibility. The issue is one of intellectual honesty. Most of us have an inner need to make sense of the concrete and the apparently transcendental. Some people speak of acceptance of the inevitable condition of living with two different worlds, but I suspect most are not satisfied with that dichotomy. Because everything in science and theology requires interpretation, we seek interpretation. We seek interpretations that permit consistency in the area of intersection, an area of compatibility. The issues are therefore reduced to a consideration of the principles of hermeneutics in theology and science.

Consider the possible ways that one can view the relation between the supposedly natural and the apparently supernatural, between science and creationism, between views derived from inspiration and those derived from science.

The Incomplete Science Model

God works only through natural law, but humanity’s incomplete knowledge makes some natural events seem unnatural, or supernatural. Ellen White apparently subscribed to this view:

In dwelling upon the laws of matter and the laws of nature, many lose sight of, if they do not deny, the continual and direct agency of God. They convey the idea that nature acts independently of God, having in and of itself its own limits and its own powers wherewith to work. In their minds there is a marked distinction between the natural and the supernatural. The natural is ascribed to ordinary causes unconnected with the power of God. Vital power is attributed to matter, and nature is made a deity. It is supposed that matter is placed in certain relations and left to act from fixed laws with which God Himself cannot interfere; that nature is endowed with certain properties and placed subject to laws, and is then left to itself to obey these laws and perform the work originally commanded.

This is false science; there is nothing in the word of God to sustain it. God does not annul His Laws, but He is continually working through them, using them as His instruments.1

They do not believe in the supernatural, not understanding God’s laws or His infinite power to work His will through them. As commonly used, the term "laws of nature" comprises what men have been able to discover with regard to the laws that govern the physical world; but how limited is their knowledge, and how vast the field in which the Creator can work in harmony with His own laws and yet wholly beyond the comprehension of finite beings!2

The Deus Ex Machina Model

This view accepts a break in the cause-and-effect sequence of events of determinism and allows unnatural or miraculous events that cannot be explained by natural laws. Thus, events such as creation, the resurrection of Christ, Christ walking on the water, and hundreds of other miracles fall outside of science as we know it; they are true violations of natural law. This interpretation contrasts with the Incomplete Science Model which suggests that these events would be compatible with science if it were more nearly complete. Most Adventists probably accept some variation of the Deus Ex Machina Model.

The Complementary Model

The objectives, emphases, and language of theology and science differ so much that apparent disagreement or disharmony between them may not be "real" but is only due to differences in language that reflect differences in objectives and emphasis. For example, creation may be a theological way of expressing Big Bang Cosmology. It is the role of theology to attribute the purpose and existence of the universe to God. It is the role of science to describe mechanism and process. Inspired writings provide no science or accurate description of natural mechanisms; neither should we expect them to do so. One way to see the relation between science and theology is to regard theology as properly providing attribution and purpose, while science provides the details of mechanism and process. It is in this sense that they can be regarded as complementary . Both serve a useful but different purpose. Human needs are only fully met with both. There is no need to set up an either/or condition. Science and theology are complementary, not competitive.

The Instrumentalism Model

This view accepts the results of scientific endeavors as a working model without necessarily regarding its models and conclusions as reality. This model is described by John Byl.3 Many Christians have adopted this point of view about specific theories. A person might make use of the geological strata and time scale for purposes of communication with others without a commitment to its validity. Similarly a person might make use of the scheme and language of biological evolution without a belief in the theories as literal description. The attitude may be analogous to the use of identifying people with astrological groups without a real belief in the effect of birth dates upon personal characteristics.

Evaluation of these models can be pursued by a discussion and clarification of principles of interpretation. We could profit more from our discussions about science and religion if we would back up one step, behind the specifics of content that we usually talk about, and spend more effort establishing principles of hermeneutics.

Notes and References

1. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1948), 259. Emphasis added.
2. Ellen G. White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), 114. Emphasis added.
3. John Byl, "Instrumentalism: A Third Option," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37, no. 1 (1985): 11–18.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE