Does Genesis Conflict
with Science?

Genesis was written, and has been read, long before the concept of science as we understand it came into existence. Anything we say, therefore, about the relationshiip between the early chapters of Genesis (and Gen 1 & 2-3 in particular) and science is an exercise in interpretation. If someone claims that science and Genesis conflict, it really means that her interpretation of Genesis conflicts with her understanding of science. I was trained first in the sciences (in zoology) and both my children are professional biologists; we see no conflict between science and Genesis but that is because our interpretation of Genesis and our understanding of science are congenial to one another.

Now it will be tragic if this is all we can say about the matter. It is not but it is important that we understand as starkly as possible where the book of Genesis stands with regards to the question. When we think about it this has to be because what Genesis says is unchanging and has not changed since it has been affirmed as canonical. Science, on the other hand, has gone through revolutions both in its specific findings and in its philosophical basis. Isaac Newton would be lost and shocked if he were, somehow, able to visit us today (and, I am sure, very much sadden that, given so much more, we can remain so intellectually lazy). Our understanding of (i.e., our interpretation of the evidences offered up about) the geological structure of the world or the biological relationship of animals to one another—to give just two examples—has been so totally transformed in the last half a century that I should be derisively jeered out of the class if I teach as scientific truths what I find in the textbooks from my teenage years. (For laughing at the silly things we were taught as science in school, my personal favourite is 'phylogeny recapitulating ontogeny' as demonstration of evolution at work).

Now, no matter what other things we may say in our interpretation of Genesis (including the unlikely one that claims it is simply a myth) one assertion is undeniable: Genesis claims that God is the maker of the universe and, therefore, master of nature and author of the laws that govern all that happens in it. Additionally, we can assert that—whatever else we may say about science and how it should be defined—it is foremostly the study of the laws that govern all that happens in the universe and of their results. If these two assertions are affirmed then the only conclusion we can draw is that there should be, at the very least, no conflict between the two. Understood this way, science is simply the human endeavour to discover and to understand the things of the universe that Genesis simply asserts God has created and continues to uphold and care for. Another way of putting this is to say that the Bible is the book of God's Word while nature is the book of God's Work. Biblical studies is the study of the Book of Word while science is the study of the Book of Works; the two cannot conflict.

There have been many claims assertely loudly by some Christians (especially among north Americans fundamentalists and conservatives) that science—esp., as represented by evolution—conflicts with the teachings of Genesis that God created everything in six days. Again we say, these claims have, in principle, nothing to do with Genesis and/or science per se. They have to do with particular interpretations of Genesis and of the current state of scientific understanding (very often misunderstanding). One of the most important of these misunderstanding is that creation is about what God has done (and how He must have done it). Creation as it is depicted in Scriptures is not about God 'making things.' Creation, from a biblical perspective, is about God, about who He is; that is why Gen 1 ends on the seventh day, not the sixth. This debate is too vast in scope and too important to warrant a short summary as can only be given here. While a course is under preparation for ALBERITH on evolution, for the moment we refer you to the following resources.

☰ John Polkinghorne, "The Science and Religion Debate - an Introduction," Faraday Papers No 1 (Apr 2007). 4pp. pdf

☰ John Polkinghorne, "The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate," Faraday Paper No 4 (Apr 2007). 4pp. pdf

☰ Alister McGrath, "Has Science killed God?" Faraday Paper No 9 (Apr 2007). 4pp. pdf

☰ R. J. Berry, "Creation and Evolution Not Creation or Evolution," Faraday Paper No 12 (Apr 2007). 4pp. pdf

☰ Graeme Finlay, "Human genomics and the Image of God," Faraday Paper No 14 (Apr 2009). 4pp. pdf

☰ Allan Day, "Adam, Anthropology and the Genesis Record — Taking Genesis Seriously in the Light of Contemporary Science," Science & Christian Belief 10.2 (1998): 115-143.

Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2020