Theology and Science

Explore that the difference between Genesis 1 and 2 is an intertextual issue. As an example, the morning and evening before the sun and moon is an intertextual issue. There are differences between what the literal relates in the size of the Moon and Jupiter. Consider that we have extratextual evidence that the earth is old and that is not compatible with the genealogies. Is there any evidence of the kind of structures in Genesis 1 that would make it a literary device teaching something other than history but rather teaching something more theological in nature? Consider the literary framework of creation in Genesis. Throughout Genesis 1, creatures who would have been objects of worship within ancient near eastern culture are declared to be the creation of God. In its literary framework, what was God's primary purpose in Genesis 1? The point is not how God created but what God created. There are reasons within Scripture to wonder if it is intended to be directly historical. The evidence from the outside world appears to suggest that the earth is old. It is reasonable to say Scripture does not define the time period, the evidence suggests the earth is old and so the earth is old. Some are convinced if we give up on the 6,000 years, we have given up on the inerrancy and authority of Scripture so have given up on the whole Christian faith. Is that true? Consider that the question, "Do you believe in Creation or..." sets up a false dilemma. Explore some misunderstandings and distractions. Is it true that evolutionary theory was at the foundation of some of the eugenics movements? If evolution is false, it is not because Hitler liked it. Realize that US legal system now holds that science is about atheistic explanations for how things happen. Science becomes not about what really happened but science is about a story that does not include God in it. This idea creates a ghetto out of science. Explore the idea of Evolution. If the earth is old, is there a problem with evolution having been the process by which God created biological diversity? Is that contrary to God being the creator of all things? The problem of evolution is that there was not just death prior to the Fall, but pervasive physical death used by God intentionally as part of the creative process. Consider that this world requires the death of some things to have the life of others. What do we make of Adam and Eve? Consider that the Fall seems to be isolated in a one man, one woman event. Christ is able to spiritually fulfill as one person, which is a problem if early human creation is of a larger group. In and of itself evolution is not contrary to God being Creator. The issue is the specifics of how evolution played out. If evolution occurred, in what way did mankind occur, how is death prior to the Fall okay, and how does that fit in the broader salvation history that we have which started with Adam and Eve? Consider that in handling pastoral issues we need to train people to be thoughtful.

Explore the example of the age of the Earth related to a distant star and light waves. Did God make it look old and the Uniformitarian assumption that things have always been the same is right, or is that assumption wrong? Consider the age of the Earth in relation to rock layers. For those who think the earth looks young and is young, rock layers were laid by a fast process and the think that makes the earth's rock layers look old is a bad assumption. For those who think the Earth looks old, the rock formations were created directly by God. Consider some categories of evidence. On a casual reading of Scripture or experience, which is bigger, the Moon or Jupiter? Is there a way holding fast to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture that we can understand that does not mean there is a contradiction between Scripture and the natural world? Consider that God was not intending to teach people about the relative sizes of the planets. There is nothing wrong with having evidence from the world that causes us to go back to Scripture and ask, "Is there another way to understand this?" The chronology between Genesis 1 and 2 has differences that are somewhat troubling. Reflect on the days of creation. On day 1 God created light, on day 2 he divided the waters from the waters, on day 3 dry land and plants were created, on day 4 more lights were created, on day 5 fish and birds were created and on day 6 land animals and man were created. For Augustine, all the declarations in the early part of Genesis are really spiritual realities that are being expressed in physical language. Does it work within the text to say "day" is not a day but a period? Explore the Day- Age Theory in which each day refers to an age. What is a "day"? What is "morning"? What does it mean to be a literal day when there is no sun or moon?

“Telos” refers to purposes or ends. In Teleological Ethics, the "ends justify the means". Things are judged good or bad based on their purpose. Technology regards making tools and changing ways of living. Technology is about doing things and science is about learning things. Consider the example of diabetes, embryonic stem cell research, and Amniocentesis. Consider that Amniocentesis, in and of itself, is not immoral or moral. Explore the example of Vitamin A deficiency. On the baseline of what is opposed to on the teleological argument of the embryonic stem cell research is the destruction of human life. Sanctity of life is higher than the teleological. Science demonstrates what we could do technologically and shows us what could happen but science, in and of itself, cannot create an obligation ethically.

Our goal is to be more thoughtful, logical, and rational in our approach to science. There is a need to be prepared pastorally for how we are to treat this subject in our churches. Realize that truth does not conflict with truth. The truth that God reveals in what he says by his word, and the truth in what he reveals by the creation by his word, will not be in conflict. Realize our interpretations of truths in both of those areas may very well be in conflict. The effects of sin and our limitations are such that we are necessarily going to have conflict at times in our interpretation. There comes a point where we must say, "This is true or the whole thing is false." If the Resurrection did not happen, the whole thing is false. Consider that some use truth claims and condemn those who reject them as "falsifying" Christianity. Consider the topic of Eschatology. If we only had Scripture, what would we think reading Scripture all by itself, about how the earth began? Reflect on Genesis 1 and 2. Consider the inerrancy and authority of Scripture concerning Genesis 1 and 2. What are the explanations for the difference between Genesis 1 and 2? Does Scripture itself raise a question before we've asked the first thing about the nature of creation about how it was done? Is there a question to be raised between Genesis 1 and 2? Who is created on Day 6? To approach this in a woodenly literal way, the day in Genesis 2 must be made figurative to preserve the literal impact of the word "day" in chapter 1. Explore interpreting the Genesis verse as parenthetical.

If we think the earth is more than 10,000 years old we are outside the bounds of the literal interpretation of Genesis. Calvin, believing in a young earth, thought the Egyptians wrote false histories. Augustine had an entirely figurative reading of Genesis 1. Consider the study of Geology through Metamorphic, Sedimentary, and Igneous rock. Once we go beyond 10,000-20,000 years for the age of the earth we have moved past Genesis 1 giving us a literal representation of time. Consider that it is reasonable to say the creation occurred in about 6 days about 6,000 years ago. It is also reasonable to suppose the universe started some 13 billion years ago. There are problems with both views due to little pieces of data that do not fit. Consider that one of the logical fallacies everywhere is the use of anecdotal evidence.

On a casual reading of Scripture we can assume the earth is young. Consider that in modern science, there are claims made but no money to reexamine them and they would not stand if the experiment was done over again. There are problems within science all by itself. On a casual scientific investigation of the world, it looks like the earth is very old. On a casual reading of Scripture it looks like the earth should be young. Uniformitarianism is the idea that what is now is what it was like before. Consider that the Big Bang Theory with the accelerated expansion of the inflation period defies Uniformitarianism. Why should "the earth looks old and is young" be abhorrent to us theologically? If God holds us responsible to believe the earth is young, and God intentionally made the earth look old, then there is a serious moral problem with what God is doing. Explore the Scientific Method as it relates to Romans and how God reveals himself. The Scientific Method is a reasonable and rational way to approach things. Consider that there is a difference between God's nature and character being declared, and God's specific actions being revealed. Romans 1 speaks more of God's character than the specific actions God has taken. Consider that our faith is very much predicated upon real historical events. Evidence, eyewitnesses, and truth about what happened in history is a big part of Christianity. Explore the idea of God making Adam a fully formed human. Consider generalized skepticism or the withholding of commitment on the topic of creation.

Explore the example of environmentalism. Environmentalism is not just about science but is also about ethics. Consider the statement, "Is" does not imply "ought" but every "ought" does imply an "is". If we say, "You ought to...", we make a moral claim. We are making a claim about a deeper reality. Why do we consider nature good? Often there is a kind of nature worship in environmentalism. Consider the example of Aspirin. In environmentalism there is an underlying idea that nature has a power. There is no pre-existing reason from a Christian worldview that says it is necessarily true. In the Christian worldview, nature is fallen just as we are. Explore the example of invasive species. Recognizing Bad Evidence slide. A Bare Claim is a claim where there is no evidence - it is just a statement. Consider the example of GMO's. Consider again that "Is" does not imply "Ought". Consider the example of human sexuality. If there is a genetic tendency toward violence, it does not mean a person ought to be violent. Consider the gender issue on a broader scale. Realize that there is a distinction being made between sex and gender. Do purely social expressions of gender really matter? Consider what may become an issue – polygamy.

Explore that science or science-y claims in the Church will be used to try to bind the conscience of believers in our ministry. The Westminster Confession of Faith in XX.II states, ”God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” Explore the topic of child-rearing and Christian education. The data is interesting relating to the commands to discipline but it does not produce a bind of conscience. Consider the issue of nutrition. Science is brought in to try to cause the binding of conscience. Is there any evidence that traditional western medicine helps people to be healthy? In pastoral interaction with people, there is a need to recognize bad science, call it what it is, and be able to prevent people from binding the consciences of other people within the congregation in ways that hurt them. If we are skeptical we will help our congregation be kept from inappropriate conscience binding.

What would evolution be as a scientific theory? Why does morality and even ethics develop on the evolutionary paradigm? The Evolutionary Theory would be a story (paradigm) that best explains available data. Creation stories give us an explanation of value, truth, and reality. Consider that Evolution is the most important part of building out a worldview that does not need God. Evolution, as a metaphysical explanation of how we came to be, if it is turned into an explanation of what is right, wrong, and valuable - that is functioning as religion. Creation or Evolution? There is no theoretical reason that there could not have been a progressive creation. Consider that when something is said to be meaningless, it is a religious claim. Consider the study of altruism. People think altruism is good. Altruism exists in humans because it is evolutionarily preferred in social groups. If altruism is good, why does it develop in human beings? One choice is that altruism is random. Altruism exists in humans because it is evolutionarily preferred in social groups. Evolutionary psychology explains behaviors that exist but cannot make value judgments. Consider what Richard Dawkins stated in The Selfish Gene, “We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism—something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of selfish replicators.” What makes Dawkin's rhetoric powerful is an appeal to pure altruism. Dawkins acknowledges the metaphysical existence of pure altruism. Evolutionary psychology will be death for secular humanism. The more survivable your genes are, the more valuable you are. If altruism is good and exists, altruism is either random or there is a designer. Consider that evolution, in and of itself, will end real value. Consider the secular view of altruism.

Explore Politicized Science. There can be appropriate and inappropriate ways in which science changes behavior. This may be judicial, ecclesial, or even causal, but will occur within our ministry. Appropriate politicized science brings awareness of previously unknown dangers, changing behavior and policy. Inappropriate politicized science with its desire to see behavior or policy changed drives scientific research, interpretation, and/or manipulates to support existing agendas. Explore the examples of tobacco, pollution, radiation, sanitation, nutrition, and psychology. Consider that Science reveals more information about the way the world works and then we respond in a different way in terms of how we act and then we make policies accordingly. Explore the example of Climate Change. It is clear that data could be manipulated to go either direction on the Climate Change issue in terms of a futuristic computer model. Climate Change is heavily politicized by people who have a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Realize it is not just big industry with something to lose but developing nations also. Consider that there is the data and then there is the narrative that is put on the data. The truth requires interpretation by people looking at the data and when everyone is highly motivated by actions they want the data to cause, it becomes very difficult to evaluate what good science is. The Christian ethical issues tied in with Climate Change are really significant. Climate Change is a place where science is being used to drive moral imperatives and moral imperatives are significantly the business of the Church. Consider the example of sexuality. We want to expose bad reasoning because public reasoning gets pulled into the Church all the time. Discuss the possible issue of a church member with a strong conviction on environmental issues and consider the example of GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms).

Continue to explore politicized Science. Consider the example of racism and eugenics. Eugenics means "good genes". Is it true that over time we can manipulate the genetics of a population by selective breeding? In the past there was a massive cultural approval of policy that was inherently full of murder and racism. We need to recognize when science is being used to float policy directions in ways we ought to know better than to go along with. We need to understand correlation versus causation for recognizing bad evidence. Consider the example of cholesterol. Cholesterol does not lead to heart disease but is correlated to it. Just reducing cholesterol by itself did not reduce the rates of heart disease. The correlation did not have the same level of causation as they thought. The newest correlation is the intake of sugar. Consider Confirmation Bias which is that everything counts as evidence. Understand what drives the direction of science. When we become sure something is true we become more likely to pay for the scientific research. How can we recognize when people use confirmation bias? Recognize that anecdotal claims are a form of bad evidence. Explore the example of autism. There is no meaningful measurable correlation between childhood vaccines and autism. Anecdotal claims do not actually imply ethical imperative.

Even some relatively apparently simple systems display chaotic behavior. Explore the Double Pendulum experiment. The double pendulum experiment demonstrates unpredictability over time. The Chaos/Complexity Theory refers to the study of the unpredictability of complex systems due to their sensitivity to extremely small initial conditions. Consider the example of trying to balance the populations of rabbits and foxes In a nature preserve. This is an example of Unpredictability by Ignorance. There are too many factors for us to understand all of it. Consider that any kind of actual unpredictability in a system means that over time we can have wildly divergent results. Little tiny changes could cause wildly divergent results. Consider God's sovereignty. Peter, denying Christ three times, has been a story preserved with unimaginable consequences. The Chaos Theory reemphasizes the need of creation being of the whole. Humanly, talking about creation in the past makes sense but God regards creation as creation of the whole. Explore the statement, "The future is not knowable." Is it true that God cannot know things that cannot be known? How do we know the future? The future is not knowable by means of prediction from the present. Why does God have to know the future by means of prediction of the present? They have made God into a member of this universe. If we are limited by the limits of this universe, even the greatest possible member of this universe could not know the future by his infinite knowledge of this whole universe. The Creator - creature distinction has been lost. Consider that God, at his very biggest, is not here in the world with us knowing the world like us. We need to avoid letting the Chaos Theory and Complexity overcome our commitment to who God really is.

There are some who believe that God is continually creating. Consider that Open Theism is an incoherent system because it tries to keep God and give up God at the same time. In Process Theology, God is identified with all the possibilities. Process Theology teaches that what is creating the future is the present. Both Open Theism and Process Theology end with God waiting to see what we will do. The Consider the example of a director and a play. If Predestination is a human term for an eternal reality which is that God has determined to create the world from beginning to end that He wants and the best language to use is Predestination, then it works. If we try to bring God's causality into the world, both the Reformed and Open Theist answers fail. The hugely important point is to recognize the Creator-creature distinction. Most are inconsistent on the sovereignty and free will topic. Explore the issue of Prayer and Causation. If causation is in the world, what is prayer? If prayer is an event in this world, what is prayer going to cause? When does God's causation, in response to that prayer, have to have started? Consider that really all that prayer can do is change you. For science, prayer only changes the mental state of the person praying. In the Open Theism issue, when all causation is internal and God does not really know if we are going to pray, there is not much left for prayer. Explore the role of prayer in Pastoral Counseling. Prayer changes our attitudes about something. We can't know the future. God can only guarantee the future within this world by force - by constraining the actors and making them do it. Whether or not prayer has occurred is part of the unknowable future. In Fatalism, the question is asked, “Why should we pray because God will do what He will do anyway”. When we yank sovereignty down into this world and make it a force amongst other forces we end up with Deism. If we keep sovereignty transcendent and God's, then it is not fatalism.

There is a tendency in Neuroscience to be Reductionistic. The simple reduction of Neuroscience is that our minds are a collection of neurons. A Synapse is the place from one nerve cell to another where there is a chemical crossing for brain activity. Emergence is the appearance of higher-level organization out of a constituent parts. Consider Supervenience. To what degree is the mind real and dependent on neurons? Consider the work of Drs. Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili. Neuroscientists have been able to artificially cause people to have what would normally be identified as religious experiences. The religious experience the experiments caused was what could be called the eastern mystical religious experience. It is the feeling of the oneness of all things. If we can cause this artificial mental experience, of the unity of all things, what does that mean? What does that mean about the unity of all things? My brain is physically capable of religious experience. Is it because God designed it for that or because of evolutionary forces we don't understand? Consider the example of Glossolalia. Explore the idea of the Holy Spirit and the Causal. Does the preaching of the Word matter for the work of the Holy Spirit? Does God need the preaching of the Word to do His work of Salvation? Do more people come to faith within or without the Church? Does God use things that exist in the world for the growth of His kingdom? God is clearly using natural causes in the working out of his supernatural will. Explore Biochemistry and Behavior. Consider common heard excuses such as, "The beer talking". This excuse is I'm not responsible because of chemistry. Another is, "I was off my meds". This excuse is that I am not responsible because I didn't change my brain chemistry. These statements reduce humanity down to biochemistry. Trying to use biochemistry to eliminate or change the idea of human responsibility does not work. Does it matter whether homosexuality is genetic in the conversation on whether homosexuality is immoral according to Scripture? Does whether or not homosexuality is genetic have anything to do whether or not homosexuality is wrong? The question of moral responsibility remains regardless of the underlying chemistry.

It looks as if God has built a world in which the tiniest little pieces of what happen, happen randomly within a very nicely determined probability structure. God has appeared to make a world in which, at a tiny level, things are happening randomly but the macroscopic expression of that randomness is highly deterministic. There are three reactions: God is not in charge (Process Theology), God is in charge (Quantum Divine Action), and there is no indeterminacy (Certain classical Reformed theologians). Whether there is or is not uncertainty or contingency is of no matter to a truly sovereign God. Alfred North Whitehead makes a connection between the way our minds work and what is happening with these electrons. Whitehead stated that Randomness is the particles having a mind-likeness to them. Consider the reality of thought. A thought is a thing. For Whitehead, if you add collections of the little decision-making things, we can get larger things that themselves make decisions (such as people). For Whitehead, adding up all the particles in the universe is what he meant by God. Whitehead holds that in the present, everything that is past - all those decisions - have been made. This means that God in his eminence, is constantly getting bigger and bigger because absorbed into who God is, is everything that has actually happened. For Whitehead, there is also an element of God which is the sum total of all the possibilities. For him, the transcendence of God is the huge range of possibilities. Reflect that the big world is built up out of the little world. God could shape the world by determining quantum events. This idea presumes God needs a gap to work and that there are things that went wrong in the world that God did not anticipate and he wants to fix them. It also assumes he must work within the confines of the physical laws. Why would a Reformed theologian object to the majority interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - the idea of the truly random? During the Reformation period, most theologians, including Calvin, believed in the existence of indeterminate or chance events with respect to human causation. Calvin’s The Secret Providence of God addressed this topic. Realize that Calvin sent the conversation about sovereignty and free will back to Scripture. For Calvin, there is no problem with things being by chance in terms of their earthly existence. It was held that God determined this world to exist in which some events happen by chance. Great theologians had bought into the worldview that came out of the Enlightenment and the idea of randomness or physical certainty was so imported throughout their theology, that accepting the idea of random events in Quantum Mechanics meant giving away the sovereignty of God.

Could God choose to make the possible universe actual? When we talk about creation from God's point of view, because he is creating time itself, we need to talk about the creation of the whole of creation. Did Peter have the ability not to deny Christ three times? Consider Matthew 26:34 and Matthew 26:75. Humanly speaking, was there a chance Peter would not deny Christ? From God's point of view, was there really any chance of Peter's denial not happening? Even if our present model of the universe is not right, it is still a model in which the coexistence of determinism and randomness are coherent together. In the argument of sovereignty and free will, are there Scriptures that clearly indicate people have free will? Are there Scriptures that indicate God is in control of all things? Does Scripture seem, even in very limited places, to acknowledge the idea of chance events? Scripture speaks to human choices -free, real, and intentional and Scripture speaks to God's sovereignty in the universe. Why then is there a problem? Why is there an argument about free will and predestination when both are clearly in Scripture? Does Scripture at any time acknowledge a choice cannot be both God's and a human being's? In the argument, all agree that, "Sovereignty is incompatible with free will." In Physics, the future is real and electrons behave randomly. Physicists agree that Determinism is incompatible with Randomness. For Physicists, the war is between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Consider Augustine and Calvin on God's sovereignty and man's free will. God's Word goes out whether we understand it or not. One way to solve the problem is God's eternity relative to our timeline. For William Lane Craig, the problem can also be solved by just God's knowledge when he created the world. Consider differentiating this with the God of the gaps. The distinction is within the world or outside the world. The God of the gaps is a cause in the world. The distinction is between inside the world causation and the outside the world causation. Within the world, Adam and Eve caused the apple to have a bite out of it. God caused the world in which Adam and Eve caused the apple to have a bite out of it. Why didn't God make a world in which they didn't eat the apple? Scripture gives us two kinds of answers. Explore Job 38:1-2. Consider that to understand the whole of this universe and why creating this universe could possibly be good is far beyond what anything our minds can do. Could God create a world in which an evil event happens, in which the evil event really is evil, and in which we celebrate God for his creation of it? Reflect on the Jesus Story. The Cross, humanly speaking, is the most dreadfully awful, incredibly evil event of all time. But how do we remember the Cross - with dread or celebration? Consider that God does not yet give us a full explanation for why this world is good. We celebrate the Cross because we see the good that God has worked out of it. Amazingly, a science and theology class in which we are forced to think about the difference between internal causation and external causation, helps us to think through some of the most significant and horribly damaging theological issues in the church.

Explore the Chaos Theory. Consider that the reality is that very few actual real life things are simple. Real life systems tend to be sensitive to extraordinarily small little inputs. The longer they go, the more unpredictable they become. Weather is an example of the Chaos Theory. Consider Reductionism as the effort to explain all macroscopic appearances of objects and action by means of the “atomic” foundation. We cannot make Reductionism and the Christian worldview fully compatible. Ultimately there must be a special kind of reality to a person that is more than the sum of all the little parts. Methodological Reductionism is the job of explaining things in terms of the smallest parts. In Emergence, characteristics are revealed. In Reductionism, what is actual is a big collection of molecules which are very precisely arranged and causes the appearance of wholeness. In Dualism, there is a complete distinction between mind and soul in the physical body. But why would a physical injury seem to injure the spiritual reality? When the goal of our work is certainty in all things, we set ourselves up for disappointment. Reductionism is essentially deistic, even in its secular forms. Reductionism has a way of destroying God's role in the world and the meaning of some of our most important concepts.

The debate within the church is concerning Predestination and Free Will. In the Quantum Mechanics and Relativity debate, the debate is about Indeterminism (or randomness) and Predetermination. Physics seems to include both real true freedom and real true predetermination of what will happen before it has happened. In Quantum Mechanics, the implication of special relativity is the idea of relativity of simultaneity. Consider that Relativity gives us nothing to privilege one person's statement over another. It does not give us a framework from which we can say who is right and who is wrong. It is true, in the terms of the structure of our world, that there is no such thing as true simultaneity at a distance. That idea, which is ingrained in our mind, has more to do with our perception of the world - that there is absolute simultaneity - and because our natural experience does not show us the weirdness of what motion does within our world. Some believe that just because physics does not reveal what the privileged frame of reference is does not mean there isn't one. What is the scientific epistemology? Explore Verificationism and Positivism. In Verificationism, if we can't verify or falsify a proposition it is meaningless. There is a universal "now". In Relativity, there is no way of detecting a universal "now". When physicists say relativity demonstrates there is no "now", they are behaving as positivists. Beyond meaningless is the declaration that what is undetectable does not exist. Why would a Deist need to oppose the metaphysics of denying a present? Consider that for the Deist, even though God is never visibly working within the world, everything that happens is really fully and completely God's work. The metaphysics of denying a present and applied to God would say if God is invisible, God does not exist. For the Positivist, if there is no visible evidence of God, then saying God exists is a meaningless phrase. What would be implied if the present does not exist? Reconsider the picture of the universe and the Big Bang. General Relativity suggests a coherent way of talking about the whole of the universe as one thing. For Physicists, the most realistic vantage point of the study of the universe is outside of time all together. Augustine held that God has all of time laid out in front of Him. Consider that the more time becomes like space, the more we get access to being able to think through eternity in a different way. In what sense have events in the future already happened? Explore that a choice to freely choose something tomorrow is not absolutely past, present, or future. For the Physicist, what we do tomorrow is already predetermined so we really don't have a choice and will do what from all eternity we were going to do. This idea is right straight out of physics alone with no talk of God. Could there be a real present?

Explore the example of finding a classroom marker. In Quantum Mechanics, the way the world works is affected by the 5% chance the marker is on the table. The world is affected by the 5% chance itself. Review the Electron Experiment. For Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein, things that Quantum Mechanics seems to mean cannot be true. View Schrödinger's Cat video. Superposition is being in two states at once. Who is the observer? Some say it is actually about a human observer. In Schrödinger's Cat, the absurdity is making the scientist the observer. Realize that the observer is what makes the wave collapse into one place. The observer is the detector. Consider that there is nothing in Quantum Mechanics that says the observer requires a mind. Explore the Observer Problem. Electrons exist most of the time as a weird, impossible to picture, wave that does not correspond in any way to what we think about in terms of the natural world. Where an electron will interact within the wave is impossible to predict - it is truly random. If we had perfect knowledge of how things started, we could have perfect knowledge of how things ended. Ultimately, the roll of a die is not random but it might as well be random for us because we lack the information needed to be able to predict it. Einstein commented, "God does not play at dice." Einstein did not like the indeterminism implied by Quantum Mechanics. Within Quantum Mechanics, it is not only that there is nothing in the math that says what is determining whether the quantum die is going to go 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 but nothing in the model of the electron helps us know which way it will go in principle. Trying to add anything that does determine where it will go makes the math not work right. The model does not and cannot have anything to explain where it is going to go. With respect to relativity, Einstein was in every way a Positivist in his metaphysics. Einstein did not believe in a universe in which truly random things could possibly occur. Consider that Process Theology is basically a form of pantheism. In Open Theism, within the Church, omniscience becomes knowing everything that can possibly be known.

A common mathematical equation is, D=CT or Distance = Speed of Light x Time. Explore the examples of a baseball, Train and Miko’s space trip. Consider if space and time are absolute, we have no access to figure out what that space and time absolute is. The whole space - time structure is relative to how we are moving. In Relativity of Simultaneity, there is no scientific way to say which person is right. There is no such thing we can validate scientifically as the present. If the physical created universe had no such thing as the present, what would that mean about anyone outside of our universe? William Lane Craig holds that God is in the present. For Craig, if relativity is correct in its representation of reality, his doctrine of God is incorrect because there is no present. Augustine held that God is completely outside of time. Time is stretched out before God. Consider that relativity maintains real sequences of events and that there is real causality. In SpaceTime, the very empty space itself comes into being out of nothing. Space and time themselves come into being. There is no room for an infinite sequence of causes because time itself appears to have started and before there was time it cannot happen because there is no time in which it can happen. How could space and time have started because they appear to be connected and to have started? In God's eternity, God must be completely outside of our time because there is no such thing as the present. The only way to know the sequence of events is to be completely outside of it. There starts to be an impossibility to conceptualize what is going on. Consider that Relativity exposes the issue of realism. The concept that we get from science is above the ability of our brains to really conceptualize. Physics produces some who say everything in the future is predetermined if we are outside of time and looking at it and others who say nothing is predetermined because everything is ultimately random. The Theological Argument asks, “Is everything predetermined or free?”

Explore that Relativity makes the idea of the concept of simultaneity relative. What would that mean in terms of God's statements about the world? Consider that actual and visible present. The difference in time between our actual present and visible present shrinks as we go faster toward an object. Language like "simultaneous" that we think of as being absolute are relative terms. Realize that time is a lot like space. What does this suggest about the nature of eternity? God is not contained by space. If space is like time, it helps us to think about eternity. For Augustine, God is outside of our time. The majority view of the Church was that God in His eternity is outside of time and able to see all of time.

Explore that the beginning of our universe is not just an explosion within an existing container of space and time - it is an explosion of space and time itself starting. Why was there opposition within the Church to the Big Bang theory? Right now there is not an explanation for the increased curvature of the universe. Consider that “Dark Energy”, the energy that causes the acceleration, is a word put on something that is missing. Usually when we have this kind of missing thing in theories it is a sign that something else is coming along later that will do a better job of explaining it. Consider that it really looks like the universe is going faster and faster in its expansion. For Augustine, time started with Creation. When God spoke to the Israelites through Moses coming out of Egypt, did he need to tell them that Saturn was really actually bigger than the moon? Is what God talked about the moon as being a great light still true, even if it was neither a light nor great? Was it appropriate for God to talk theologically about who he was within the framework of what the people already believed about creation? This story of our history is crying out for an explanation. What end does this universe promise? We know as Christians, we are not made for this world. If God is taken out of the image of the universe in science, it is just utterly hopeless. Explore the concept of the edges of the universe. As we look further and further out, we are looking into our past. The edge of the universe looks at life coming from the very beginning.

When we think of space we are naturally Newtonian. If we were naturally Aristotelian, space would have more direction to it. For Newton, there was no such thing as up or down. In Newtonian space, there is no such thing as directions in space - direction has to do with individual forces. For Aristotelians, up is toward the heavens. Spatial direction in and of itself is real and carries value. The Aristotelian view held that down is the move away from perfection. For Aristotelians, space has direction. In the Enlightenment, all causation was mechanical or deterministic. In Quantum Mechanics, we start to look at small events and the model used today causes major issues for the Enlightenment view of determinism. In Quantum Mechanics, there was a realization that light was somehow both wavelike and particle like. Explore the Electron Experiment. When we see an interference pattern, we know we have a wave. Interference depends upon waves overlapping. The quantum wave is a probability wave. The graph of where the electron might be is the wave that appears to exist because things that cause interference patterns seem to be things that are real. The interference is in possibilities of where we could be. The possibilities of the electron going through either slit interfere with each other and cause it to go places it should not be able to go.

Consider that Quantum Mechanics is a theory and does not have to be representative of the real world but it seems to be. Continue to explore the Electron Experiment. If there is only one electron, what is the electron interfering with? The only way for the electron to have the interference pattern is if there are waves going through both slits. The electron behaves as if it really is a wave until we go look for it. Somehow, the electron, even though anytime we look for it, it behaves like a particle, all the time we are not looking for it, it behaves like it really is a wave. The wave that is waving is the probability of where it might be. Within that spread of probability for every individual electron, there doesn't seem to be any way to predict where it is actually going to light up. In the math of Quantum Mechanics, there is no meaning to the question of where the electron is in the time period in which it is not interacting in one place. Where the electron is, is all the places it might be. The electron cloud is the shape of the probability of where the electron might be. The probability of where the electron might be is itself a force that prevents other electron shells from coming up and bumping up against it. The probability of where the electron might be seems to have real existence. The probability wave results in another weird thing with radioactive decay. Consider Quantum Tunneling. The Chance Part is that we don't know where in the wave we will find the particle. If we look for an electron, it acts as if it is all in one place. Consider Wave Function Collapse. Relativity seemed to indicate that past, present, and future have a level of relativeness. In Quantum Mechanics, the electron going through the slit and where it lands seems to be completely random. If we incorporate Quantum Mechanics back into the view of time we get from Relativity, what is actually going to happen is already predetermined from the whole scope of the big SpaceTime universe - even though the happening itself is random. What we have is a problem of effectively predestination and freedom that is arising without any conversation about God's existence whatsoever. Physics suggests both that truly random indeterminate events happen in the universe that are free and that there is a larger frame of reference where we can say they have all already happened.

Natural Theology is that revealed out of this natural world can be real truth about God. It is not that God is revealed in the world and we are incapable of seeing it - we are capable of seeing it. Consider again, Romans 1:18-23. In Natural Theology, we have in the natural world, a point of contact apologetically to say God is revealed in the world around us and we have seen him. God's revelation in Scripture brings the underlying truth to us. What is the problem with Natural Revelation? In light of Romans 1, is it impossible to get to salvific knowledge of God through nature? Does God work salvation in a kind of sanctification of idolatry? There is a distinction of nature by itself preventing idolatry. How much human activity plays a role in the salvation event is an open theological question. To what degree is it possible to not be idolatrous when drawing conclusions about God from nature? To some degree, all of us are idolatrous. In the Prosperity Gospel, we have created an idol out of portions of Scripture. Part of the nature of idolatry is creating things we want to be true that establish human desires. In Scripture we can get true knowledge of God. Can that happen out of nature? Are there any non-idolatrous truths about God that we could, in our natural selves, conclude from nature by itself? Consider the noetic affects of sin. The noetic affect of sin is that sin has changed our ability to think. To what degree does sin affect our ability to look at the world? Can we get saving knowledge of God from nature? Karl Barth reacted strongly against the idea of natural theology. What does sin do? Consider that, "It takes a lot of truth to float a lie." Deism pulls truth about who God is into a system that ultimately rejects who God really is. Consider the experience of the beauty of a sunset. If we get a kernel of truth and flip it to something else - is it part of the effect of the Fall that that will necessarily happen or is it an effect of the Fall that we will be tempted to do that? Directly experiencing beauty is different than concluding God loves us. Can we conclude naturally that God loves beauty when looking at a sunset, apart from sanctification?

Ideas coming from science have had, will, or might have an affect on how we do theology. Consider Relativity, Space, and Time. Explore Newton’s ideas and the concept of container. What was Aristotle's concept of space that was not just like an empty container? In Aristotle's Cosmology, there is a specialness to the center. What did Newton contribute that made it possible for people to think coherently about the universe? Why was gravity that important? Having universal gravitation allowed an explanation for why things act the way they do all over the universe. Newton's Law of Gravity provides a causal framework. With Newton's Law of Gravity, space can be conceived as an infinite container. What is a wave of water? A wave is movement of a thing. Is light like a particle or is it a wave? Explore Luminiferous Ether and the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Luminiferous Ether is a word put on a theoretical need with no other existence outside of that. In all experiments and in every way and direction, the speed of light seems to remain constant. The Theory of Relativity causes us to ask, relative to what? The speed of light is always the same relative to any observer. Fundamental is that there is no way to measure how fast we are actually going. There is no framework of motion that is the right one.

How it can be that things are both going to happen a particular way and are free or random is a philosophical debate that goes back a long way. Between relativity, general revelation, and Quantum Mechanics, we have another time period that produces real conversation about the possibility of freedom and free determination. For Special Relativity, there is no such thing as standing still. In the Theory of Relativity, there is no such thing relative to the speed of light as standing still. What is really standing still? Relativity shows us that from this frame of reference, time in that frame of reference has slowed down. Perspective changes the statement. There are Theological Controversies. Often people are arguing from two different perspectives in their theology. Reformed Theology starts from the perspective of God and then looks at the fundamental human reality. Explore the example of the Perseverance of the Saints. God has access to truth that we do not have access to. Process Theology and Open Theism come up when we talk about the freedom to walk away from God. Consider that there are times when we need to speak from a human perspective about theological truths. We can find in casual theological arguments very significant relativity issues.

Human rationality by itself has failed to establish an incontrovertible foundation for knowledge. Sin is always there in our conclusions. The effect of the Enlightenment was to demonstrate that we cannot reason our way down to what is really true. Explore the Cosmological Argument and Teleological Argument. In the Cosmological Argument, everything has a cause. Either there is a beginning and we need to know there is a cause of it or there is no beginning and there still must be a cause of an infinite series instead of none. If there is a beginning, the beginning needs an explanation. If there is no beginning, then the existence of anything instead of nothing at all needs an explanation. The conclusion is that there must be some cause whose existence is necessary, whose existence must be big enough to explain all things that are, powerful enough to have caused all things and necessary in its own existence. It must be personal because it did choose to create all things. For Atheists, it is irrational to believe God exists. Consider that the Cosmological Argument does not prove that God exists, but it lends credibility and rationality to the belief that God exists in light of the fact that we don't have certainty on anything. There is nothing that we know about the world that demonstrates why there has to be a world instead of none of all. The Cosmological Argument raises questions and supports the rationality of belief. In the Teleological Argument, design implies purpose. Explore the Watchmaker Analogy. In the world there is evidence of design. This universe is incredibly sensitive to any minor differences such that life would not be possible at all. What does the sensitivity of the universe prove? Does the Teleological Argument give us certainty? For the unbeliever, Natural Theology is wonderful in the right situations to open the door to questions about who God is. It is insufficient to establish the full and complete truth of the God of the Bible. For the believer, Natural Theology lends further credibility to the worldview founded on Scripture, and following Scripture, which claims God is revealed in the world, we can get knowledge.

Consider that in Natural Theology, we do get real knowledge about God from the world. Are there false prophecies or are there things believed to be prophecies that turn out not to be. To be a prophecy does it have to be true? Many believe that Hume disproved the possibility of miracles. Does Hume do Ontology – the study of what is really true and possible - or is he doing Epistemology - what we can and should believe? In what way does Hume talk about knowledge verses talking about reality? Hume does not deny that there is underlying truth but denies our ability to know it. Explore Historical Methodology. For Hume, the burden of proving a miracle is practically infinite. Hume establishes an ethic of belief - what ought to be believed. Can we be perfectly certain of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Hume moves us into what is required of us - the reasonableness of faith, and seeking evidence that lends credibility to that faith.

Is science accumulating more and more knowledge? Paradigm Shift is when a paradigm is held, there is an accumulation of data, then an accumulation of problems, a new paradigm comes in and grabs old data and explains it and can explain the problems, which creates a new picture. Postmodernism rationally arises out of modernism and rationalism. Consider the idea of progress. Consider that actually false indicates that we have and are trying to have connections to what is really true. Actually false is a claim about what is really true. Simple Realism is problematic because it forces us to say we have it all figured out because it makes hard claims. Consider Postfoundationalism. Realism says "I'm telling the truth." Critical Realism says, "It seems like". In Critical Realism, we are able to make connections to reality but sometimes we are wrong. Epistemic humility is an openness to being wrong and to our limitations. How do we get science back to more than just making theories that are helpful or disconnected to reality? Critical Realism is trying to estimate the truth. The estimation or approximation difference is that it takes away a link from science and reality. The way to connect the model to reality is through the phenomena. To improve a worldview it needs to expand into other fields of research. As the Christian worldview moves into different fields and fits it can be considered a better approximation of what the truth really is. We have, through revelation, a connection given to us by God to a deeper reality. What is revealed through revelation ought to conform to the nature of the universe. The coherence of a worldview and its practical utility in the function of studying the world lend creditability to it as being a better approximation of what reality is really like.

Two major paradigms on Scripture today are Covenantal Theology and Dispensational Theology. Covenantal Theology emphasizes the consistency of the covenants in Genesis through to the New Testament. In this view there is a theological coherence between the Old Testament and New Testament. Dispensational Theology holds that the Old Testament covenants apply to the people of Israel until the time of Christ when a new Church period starts. Consider that our theological paradigm shapes what the evidence is and means. Is the New Covenant in addition to and expansion on the Old Covenant? Or is the New Covenant the start of a new system? Explore the distinction between the Critical Realist and Postfoundationalist. The distinction is between “I think this is what reality is like” and “I think this is like reality”. The Realist would say, “This is what reality is like.” The Critical Realist would say, “I think this is what reality is like.” The Postfoundationalist would say, “I think this is like reality”. The Instrumentalist would say, “I think this explains things that happen but have no idea its connection to reality.” Consider Hume and the topic of miracles. For Hume, after experiencing the same thing over and over again we do something reasonable. The problem in the example of a deck of cards is that we have not learned they are all aces of spades. If gravity stopped tomorrow, would we know what happened? If there is no beginning to time then there is no puzzle to how time began. If there is no puzzle to how time began then there is no puzzle about the existence of God or the need for an Originator. Realize that we know less about what is underneath than we pretend like we do. The framework in the way we see things affects the data.

Explore that Postmodernism and Relativism are the natural end because what people were searching for was certainty. René Descartes stated, "I think therefore I am." Descartes wanted to know what was really true. With everything he could doubt, he could not doubt his own existence. In Foundationalism, our knowledge must rest on a basic foundational truth and everything else comes out of that. What are the true truths that nobody can reasonably deny? Consider a priori meaning “known ahead of time”. For Hume, we can know things after the fact because we experience things. Hume denies we can know anything a posteriori or “after the fact” that can be observed, but the meaning is not contained in the definition. This tends to take away our ability to know anything. Postmodernism is the ultimate expression of the Enlightenment. Consider that phenomena are basically appearances and not the way the object really is. Reasonable and Rational Postmodernism would say, because we have no access to the underlying reality, all truth claims are equivalent. The truth claims are rendered equivalent not because they are equal and true and not because they are false. Postmodernism holds that there is a gulf between us and what is really true. In Scripture we understand God has crossed the gulf for us. God has given us truth that is real true truth. By means of the way God created us and in the creation itself, there is revelation of true truth. Consider Cornelius Van Til and Presuppositionalism. Explore practical applications for ministry. Why would text criticism disturb anyone? With text criticism, certainty is shaken.

How do we know? What can we know? Are there uninterpreted facts? Consider the reason to say no is due to paradigms, phenomena, sensation, and perception. Objectivity of the notion of an uninterpreted fact has come under attack. An example is the Paradigm of the Spheres. Behind a bare observation and the piece of data is the whole world of the paradigm. Paradigms raise questions for us too. Paradigms interpret data, raise questions, and produce the direction that we do research. It is very hard to narrow it down to a simple uninterpreted fact. Consider Phenomena. The notion of color is very much a mental thing. Sensation is when an impulse hits a nerve. Consider the impressionist painting of Claude Monet, The Argenteuil Bridge. Christian publishers objected to Impressionist paintings because they suggested there was no reality in the outside world - that reality was a construction of the mind. How is it that we could say we could never know anything? Our brains construct things that are not there. Consider the example of a tree, leaf, and atom. Reductionism it the breaking down of things to the smallest pieces and basically saying the larger whole does not exist at all. Science tends to be reductionistic - why is that? There is a unified experience coming from the connections in our brains. There is a unity that comes out of all the electrons, protons, and neutrons in our brains that is a real unity. There are things that problematize reductionism. The experience of the mind is a huge problem for science. Science cannot explain the feeling we have when thinking and feeling.

For Aristotle, the object has the form of the object in it. When we experience the object it is impressed on our minds. Consider that there are things about "treeness" that reductionism can't capture. Is beauty out in the world and we see it, or is beauty in our minds? Symmetry cues a person to think another looks beautiful. Symmetry does not determine whether or not there is beauty to symmetry. The notion of what science can do became a major movement in epistemology. The Vienna Circle was a group of 20th century philosophers called the Logical Positivists. Logical Positivism attempts to build out a scientific epistemology worldview and create a way to get rid of the problems of religion and superstition from the past. What is the impact of the statement that a proposition is only meaningful if it can be verified in this physical world? Verification quickly gets rid of all that religion has to say. Verificationism had a problem in history. Science makes "all X are Y" claims where there are not definitions within the paradigm that determine it. Consider the story of The Garden and finding the Gardener with Verificationism and Falsificationism. The proposition, "There is a gardener who cannot be seen, heard, touched nor in any other way perceived” is a meaningless proposition. Consider that Logical Positivism is more about the ethics of speaking, claiming, and belief. In Karl Popper’s system of belief about the world, a proposition is only meaningful if it is, at least in principle, able to be proven false. Popper claimed this as a methodological norm in science. Consider the complexity of Protein Structures in light of the Theory of Evolution. In Popper's case, statements about God get excluded completely from the practice of science. This is part of, not a vast conspiracy of, scientists against Christianity. But it is part of a culture in science that talking about God in any way that indicates he could have a role in these things becomes problematic.

We cannot rely on the God of the Gaps concept. Naturalism holds that everything that happens, happens by natural causes. There is a difference between believing and affirming that naturalism is true of the universe. Perfect metaphysical naturalism declares there are no supernatural causes. Metaphysical Naturalism becomes a systematic religion but lacks any ability to confirm itself. It has no revelatory claim that gives a foundation to say there is no God. Metaphysical Naturalism becomes a coherent worldview but lacks that point of contact revelation provided within Christianity to the underlying truth that we cannot observe and which is confirming. In Christianity, the significant claim is revelation. Metaphysical Naturalism stands as a comprehensive systematic religious worldview over against Christianity. To put God in the gaps, cuts off opportunity for some of the greatest scientific discoveries ever to be made that break the paradigms down and shift us to new ones. As a scientist, it would be appropriate to methodologically be a naturalist and examine the world with the assumption that God built the world with an underlying natural law and natural regularity that He designed. Methodological Naturalism is in no way contrary to Christianity. Miracles are God's intentional acts because he is a personal God who loves his creation and desires to declare his existence to his people. Consider Postmodernism and Relativism and the witnessing opportunities. Rational Postmodern holds that we have no access to whether God exists or not, or to know what is really true. If we are cut off from true truth then we might as well believe whatever we want.

There are places at which science and theology make claims or appear to make claims about the same things. Consider our theological framework. A miracle is a declaration by God to testify to his Word. With dialogue, into our worldview comes a piece of empirical data that we cannot explain. God speaks to us through His Word in accordance with how we see the world. Science causes us to evaluate our religious picture of the world. In the Independence Model, there is an attempt to protect religion from any chance of being falsifiable. Consider that the Bible makes real claims about the real world. Jesus lived, died, rose again, and will come back. We do not need to protect Christianity as if God needs our help. We can have dialogue and the dialogue can change our interpretation of things. With dialogue, religion raises questions for science and scientific evaluation and science raises questions for religion. Consider the difference between Dialogue and Integration. Dialogue sits more on the level of theory. Theology is a human endeavor that tries to point to something that is not a human endeavor. In what way can we use the term "resurrection" that will be meaningful in our scientific paradigm? Consider omnipotence - the idea of God's sovereignty. God has ordained all that will happen. In theology, a "new" problem is that there are random events. Consider Assimilation and Integration. If an event is truly random, then God cannot control it. Omnipotence tells us that God has all the power that can possibly be had so his creation could be explored or God gave away his power and therefore the random and determinancies of quantum mechanics. Omnipotence tells us God is behind everything that has happened but doesn't refer to what might happen in the future. The word "God" has been assimilated and all traditional meaning has been cut out. What is filled back in are all the "God" words that have new meaning and fit within the scientific worldview. Process theology effectively puts the name "God" onto a quantum mechanical pantheistic, but ultimately naturalistic, worldview.

Consider the Integration Model. Can science establish that murder is wrong? That murder is wrong appeals to an ethical truth. We cannot scientifically establish that murder is wrong. Explore Conflict and Murder, Dialogue and Murder, and Assimilation and Murder. Explore some case studies. Does it matter in terms of a Scriptural worldview whether or not same-sex attraction is genetic? Consider Philanthropy, Aggression, and Addiction. Does a genetic disposition toward a behavior say anything about whether it is right or wrong? We are all automatically and genetically in Adam disposed towards sin. The idea of a genetic link to same-sex attraction opens up conflict, dialogue, and integration. Consider that science is bad for equality because mostly what science is interested in is differences. Equality is an area we have a difference between what science measures and what religion measures.

Return to the experiment of cascading blocks. What is the primary cause of the block falling? What is the remote cause? What are the secondary and mediate causes? Consider that the primary cause has a purpose as a method of teaching. The secondary cause is absolutely necessary but without intent or purpose. The proximate cause is the one that is most local. The sufficient cause is all that is required for something to happen. For Deism, God acts then gets out of the way. For the God of the gaps to be big he must be doing things - the less he does the smaller he gets. The idea was intended to protect the dignity of God but in the end actually reduces him into a thing that can be made smaller by new discoveries. Consider that God is efficiently working all the time. Occasionalism holds that God recreates everything each moment and cuts out real secondary causes. God is the primary cause of all things. What is the problem with Deism? Deism adequately understands the capacity of God to work all things through secondary causation. Deism takes human ideals and applies them to God in ways that make God disappear. For Plotinus, God becomes so perfected and what is perfect cannot change. If God knew the world in each individual moment then his knowledge would change from moment to moment and change would be brought to the being of God. In this view, God gets locked away from the understanding and direct knowledge of the world. The idea that God can work through secondary causes becomes the idea that God only works through secondary causes and that acting directly would be beneath the dignity and power of a real God. This view leaves out the idea that God can be personal and relational. Consider there is real secondary causation and while real things happen in the world, it is God who sustains them. God's action does not need to be God being present here and working a little bit. It was the will of God which started the universe and sustains the forces, such as gravity. God is ultimately the purpose as well. The final consummation of heaven is real and all of history is working in that direction.

Explore the concept of an incoherent worldview and the concept of the Eucharist. In the concept of the Eucharist, there are arguments either resulting from an incoherent worldview or arguments that result from two incompatible worldviews. What view of the Eucharist is predominant in the literalistic system of theology? A highly symbolic view of the Eucharist is least literalistic. What is Natural? Natural is when there is no intent that changed it. Are we natural? One concept of natural is something not touched by human beings. Explore the ideas of Natural vs. Supernatural. Consider that Supernatural implies outside of the physical laws. Natural can mean not human, not spiritual, or not divine. Natural can also mean affected by the Fall or not affected by the Fall. Where does the idea come from that natural or organic is better? Some view something that is natural superior than if it were human caused. "Natural" seems to deny the effects of the Fall. Consider that much of nature has been declared to be a curse. As humanity is sent off by God into the world there is a commandment to stewardship that implies an act of bringing order to the world. A stewardship principle to the world implies that the world as it sits all by itself is not where it ought to be. Consider that the final consummation will not just restore people but the physical world. Some assume natural implies better but that is not a concept that is consistent with Christian theology. The curse of the Fall affects both what is human and what is natural and our concept of natural needs to be thoughtfully considered. Our cure is not in this natural world - it is in the next restored world and ultimately in Christ.

Natural is what occurs by means of the regularities that God has ordained. Supernatural is what happens by spiritual causes. Consider Natural vs. the Divine God of the Gaps or any kind of theory that God is made into one of the regularities of the universe. Explore the Theory of the Big Bang. Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity Evolution, and the idea of natural selection in a sense is an incomplete theory. If God had to act for an evolutionary process to happen then secular scientists would have great difficulty with that and would try to explain it away. Consider Michael Behe and his book, Darwin's Black Box. In Irreducible Complexity, things only function if all the parts are there and have no function without any one of the parts. We should be very slow to put God into gaps that we see in theories. The God of the Gaps theory is usually connected to us being positive we have figured it out. Consider the "miracle" of childbirth What a miracle is should be very important to us theologically. Because God does not have to use special causation all the time because of the regularities with which the world is governed, it sets the stage for there to be this thing called a miracle which has a very, very specific purpose. What is the purpose of miracles, signs, and wonders in Scripture? Generally in Scripture, miracles are interventions that testify to God, God's Word, and God's Messenger. The miracle testifies to the power of the Fixer. Miracles have a very specific purpose and testimony. The very concept of a miracle presupposes they do not happen often. The idea of a miracle presupposes the regularity of the universe at which God otherwise organizes it. Consider the theological aspect of the miracle of the Word.

Explore the relationship between Science and faith and the Richard Dawkins conflict. Was Galileo involved in a conflict between science and religion? Consider that Richard Dawkins expresses a conflict between religion and religion and that Dawkins is an apostle for a false religion. He proclaims the religion of atheism. Explore Ian Barbour’s When Science Meets Religion and the Conflict Model. What is the conflict between Christianity and Science at the present time? The most significant apparent conflict right now is over the age of the earth, whether evolution existed, and how much evolution existed. Is there conflict between religion and science now? If science is the study of the natural world, conflict between science and religion does not really work. The Christian who believes the earth is 10,000 years old is going to attempt to continue to do the work of science but operate in a different paradigmatic framework. Methodologically, science advances best when we don't assume.

In the conflict model of Christianity and Science, it is hard to rationally dispute the idea that truth does not conflict but we don't have direct access to the complete and coherent picture of the universe. Apparent conflict is fine but the idea that science and religion always are in opposition to each other is false. Stephen Jay Gould’s view of Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) set science and religion completely apart so there could never be conflict. For Gould, science answers all the "how's" and religion just makes up answers for "why". Science by itself can never make value statements about right or wrong. Some try to insulate Christianity from any scientific claims so much that it almost does not matter if it is true or not. In Instrumentalism, science gives us models that work but don't imply how things really are. Was the Ptolemaic model of the sun revolving around the earth effective? Instrumentally, the Ptolemaic model was false. The Ptolemaic model could be used to see where the planets would be and it was better than the Copernican model. Is the Copernican model true? Is the sun the center of the universe? Was the Copernican model good? What makes our model of the universe better than all the other ones before us?

Does our interpretation of Scripture change every time science changes? Both in our interpretation of Scripture and in our interpretation of the natural world, as they both fill into our attempt of a worldview, we need humility in that some of our most firmly held beliefs may be false. We should have an increasing level of humility to theological concepts as they get further and further away from the primary creeds of the Church. The Creeds reflect the earnest efforts of the whole Church to express the core truths of what Christianity is saying in special revelation. Inerrancy and authority are not as simple as they sound because interpretation of Scripture is not as simple as it seems. Historical study that influences interpretation of Scripture is an example of general revelation affecting our interpretation of special revelation. In Instrumentalism, representations of the world do not have to imply the way the world really is to be useful. In Science, rather than a sense of progress toward truth, we only get better and better instruments. Consider Paradigm and Worldview. The paradigm in which we work determines the questions we ask. The Ptolemaic System had problems because it got complicated and the circles were not working. Newton provided a word and some math. Mathematical elegance continually demonstrates itself to be superior to correspondence with evidence in determining what theory is better. Which theory was better at handling the actual locations of the planets and stars, the Galilean Theory or Ptolemaic Theory? The evidence was better with the older Ptolemaic System but the Galilean system was mathematically more simple and eloquent. The more elegant theory, time and again, has worked out to be the more valid and seemingly more realistic representation of our world. Why is the world so elegant? Science cannot answer.

Explore an experiment of cascading blocks. What caused the block to fall to the ground? The block hit the ground for the purpose of illustrating a point. Consider that science tends to be reductionistic. The design or structure caused the block to hit the ground. Aristotle explored Material Cause and Efficient Cause. What is the efficient cause of the block? The efficient cause is the force. Aristotle also explored the Formal Cause. The formal cause is the design in the event. The block has an element of design and the cause of the block's existence is a form of what the block is.

In the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the bread and the wine substantially transforms into the body and blood of Christ, which gives spiritual nourishment. If one of the things that defines what a thing is, is what it does, then because the bread is doing what the body of Christ does, it is the body of Christ substantially. In Transubstantiation, the bread and wine are turned into the thing the body and blood of Christ do. The Luther - Roman dispute about the Eucharist had more to do with the physical, the science, and the notion of substance rather than the theological concepts of what was happening. What is the concern with Luther's view of "with, in, and under"? The problem was that Christ's humanity could not be distributed around the world. For Luther, Christ's presence is there in the Eucharist. In the Aristotelian view, the real presence of Christ does not require division of Christ's body - the bread and wine become extensions of Christ's body and blood because of what they do. The reason Calvin moves to the spiritual is to protect the humanity of Christ. Explore the common understanding of Transubstantiation in that there is no change in the accidents or appearance. The change is in the effect.

Scripture literally tells us that the earth does not move. In the Ptolemaic System, the earth is not set on foundations but is the center of the world. Consider Calvin’s thoughts on Genesis. What is the controversy about biblical interpretation that Calvin responds to? Consider the size of Saturn versus the size of the Moon. What does Calvin seem to imply about Moses' understanding of astronomy? The idea that Saturn was bigger than the moon would have been revolutionary even to the intellectual elite of Egypt much less than to slaves. Consider that Genesis 1 would be far longer if God's primary purpose was to give man detailed scientific information about the structure of the world. For Calvin, God spoke through Moses to people using what they obviously went out and saw. God's Word is accommodated to the people, their needs, and His purpose. For Calvin, the implication is that Moses knew. What does Calvin say about the study of science and the natural world? Calvin held that doing science helps us gain more knowledge of God. Calvin did not give preeminence to the clear reading of Scripture. Consider that the clear reading of the universe has become so well established that it is sufficient cause for us to go back and reinterpret what we thought was the clear reading of Scripture. What does this imply about hermeneutics and general revelation? God's purpose was to declare His preeminence over the sun, moon, and stars. God declared His preeminence over the things people were worshipping as gods. If we view the natural world as a place of God's general revelation, then letting revelation interpret revelation is appropriate. What about inerrancy? The Bible is inerrant with respect to the purposes and truths that God is successfully communicating through it. Consider that Scripture is always accommodating.

Aristotle was seen as a very important source of truth to medieval thinkers. Tied into Aristotle's work was his view of creation. For Aristotle, the physical wants to go down and stop moving. With the Enlightenment, René Descartes held that brute matter has no desires - it is mechanical. Consider that things with desires cannot be trusted to always behave the same way. Descartes's view of brute matter leads to a mechanical worldview. In terms of establishing a religious viewpoint that would cause science to explode, Deism is the perfect religion. What is Deism? The Deistic view holds that the world occurs by perfect, mechanical, and deterministic actions. If God is perfect, He would create perfectly. In the explosion of science, Deism played a massive role. The idea of regularity and brute forces is critical to the development of science and the way we think of it today. Why is it that we are able to understand the world at all? Having the ability to survive in this universe does not in and of itself constitute having the ability to understand it. In a true Naturalistic Evolution Theory, evolution can not have a goal. Science cannot do purpose and goal by itself. Evolutionary Epistemology effectively suggests that the ability to systematize patterns provides an increase in survival skills. Consider that we are designed to make patterns. Being able to construct theories of the world out of patterns of behavior help us survive. We make the mistake in thinking that the patterns we believe exist are real.

Explore the idea of Plato's Cave. When we seek knowledge we should be looking for the true truth of what we experience in the world around us. There are perfect ideas that can be expressed in language better than they are experienced in the physical world. Consider theological perfections. We have a natural inclination to believe there is a good - a rational logical truth of goodness. Whether it is something that God is judged by or a part of who God is, it tends to be how we think and is reflected in language. The physical universe must be valued. Gnosticism taught that the physical world was real but evil and deficient. Consider that if the physical world is evil, there will not be a corporate emphasis on studying it. The study of the physical universe needs to be valuable to add an emphasis behind science. Judeo-Christian creation beliefs and the influence of Greek rational thought enabled the rise of modern science. Emphasis on rationality, combined with a belief that the world is real, good and its study can bring knowledge of God who is revealed in it, makes the scientific process possible and worthwhile. In the Enlightenment, modern science began. How are different religious beliefs tied into the advance of science? Consider theological concepts and that the general revelation goal of science is to get real truth. We read in Romans 1:18-23, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." General revelation is a place God chooses to reveal himself in special revelation.

What are the necessary parts of a worldview for science to begin to happen? How did Christianity play a part in the rise of modern science? Consider that we ought to allow general revelation to raise more questions. Explore the dominant scientific paradigm. Consider that a vast scientific conspiracy would involve intent and will to deny the truths of Christianity but that does not exist. A general paradigm does exist that takes for granted things that move past science and into religious truths about the world. This paradigm of thought controls most research until there are problems. How should our study of science and study of theology intersect? Uncritical Realism is that what we say in science about the world is how it really is and what we say theologically about Scripture is really what it says. We need to be critical about both our theological constructs and our scientific theories in terms of their ability to point to the same underlying truth. There is only one truth and God is the Creator of all that exists. There is nothing that exists that is not God's work. Even if there was no Fall, our science would not be perfect. We ultimately seek for God's intent in Scripture.

The word "science" means many different things in different contexts. Science is the study of God's general revelation and study of things God has done. When we look at history we are looking at the things God has done. Modern Science and Scientific Process Technology is manipulating what we do know to improve our lives. Science has the pursuit of knowledge at its core to learn more about the world. Modern science does not require a Christian worldview but a Christian worldview is consistent with what has happened in science. Christianity really sets the foundation for science to occur. Major cosmological worldviews include the Hebrew Worldview and Ptolemaic Worldview. For Aristotle, matter wants to come to a stop as far down as it can. Is there anything in your life that tends to regularly contradict that idea?

For Copernicus, the earth was in the heavens - the place of perfections - and matter always wants to go to the middle. Copernicus did not give a physics to explain why matter did not do what it was supposed to. The concepts of inertia and gravity did not exist at the time. Copernicus was influenced by the philosopher, Plotinus. Plotinus brought the concept of the perfect good out of the outer realm and put it into the universe. For Plotinus, the sun represented the eternal, immutable God. Copernicus produced a new theory of the universe. His new worldview was simpler and fit his presuppositions about the world, but was worse in explaining the evidence. Changing orbits from circles to ellipses, crushed the worldview of the perfection of the heavens. Old science had an explanation - the heavens were part of the non-brute matter. It had purpose and was perfect. Galileo believed Scripture and science should be compatible. He was told by the Church that he could teach the Copernicus theory but not as the way things really are. When Galileo saw flaws on the moon, it destroyed the old worldview. In the study of our universe there have been additional revolutions since Copernicus. Consider that Newton's Theory of Gravitation provided, for the first time, an explanation for why and how in his Laws of Motion, the planets could orbit the sun. Newton's structure of the physical universe laid a foundation and helped make sense of the Copernican worldview. Newton's system of physics strengthened the argument of the Deists so Newton tried to protect God by putting God into the problem of his scientific theory which ultimately allowed God to be taken out of the universe. Consider that if our concept of what God has done is based on what nature has not done, God is not big any more and is getting smaller and smaller.