When God and Science Mix

beakerRepublished with permission from Baptist Bulletin Nov/Dec 2010. All rights reserved.

By Liz Gifford

Challenges and Opportunities on the University Campus

Dad and Mom and their high school son or daughter sit at a table piled with college catalogs, applications, and scholarship forms. “I would really like to study chemistry or biology at the university, Dad.”

“But you know the big news stories coming out of the universities are about professors not getting tenure or even being fired because of their Christian stand on contemporary issues. What are your chances of having classes under an instructor who isn’t an atheist?”

“All I hear is how the university is a negative influence on Christians. Not the place I want to send you,” Mom adds.

“But I enjoy physics and chemistry and math, and I get good grades in those classes. I could help find a cure for cancer or work with plants and find a source of food to end hunger around the world.”

So the discussion goes as parents struggle to help their young people make the right choice of a place to study to be what God wants them to become.

Christian young people who wish to take advantage of the programs offered by a secular university, who wish to study under professors who are leaders in their areas of expertise, who want a diploma from an outstanding institution of higher learning are going to have to confront ideas that challenge their Christian beliefs. These are found in most areas of study, but highly volatile topics come under scrutiny in the sciences. Biology, archaeology, chemistry, and physics classes will force Christian young people to examine what they believe.

Two Christian men, David Boylan and Craig Wilson, have studied science and spent their careers teaching on secular campuses. They can provide an inside perspective on the rewards and challenges of being a Christian, a teacher, and a scientist in a secular university. Boylan was dean of the engineering department at Iowa State University for 18 years. Wilson teaches students at East Stroudsburg University (Pa.) to be science teachers. They are willing shared their experiences and observations, which leave us encouraged yet aware of challenges.

Boylan, a member of Faith Baptist Church, Cambridge, Iowa, has fond memories of his years at ISU. The university had a Christian faculty association with more than 120 members. “They were from most disciplines across the university. We met regularly in great fellowship. A Christian faculty member can find a blessing in just knowing other Christians are working in similar non-Christian situations. They can support each other and enjoy fellowship. And it is an opportunity for the university at large to see the testimony in the lives, as well as in the words, of those who are Christians.”

A graduate of Baptist Bible College and member of Heritage Baptist Church, Clarks Summit, Pa., Wilson finds that a variety of faiths are represented in his department. He says they have a close relationship. The campus also has an active group called University Christian Fellowship.

Both men referred to the opportunities to interact with students. Wilson has this opportunity through monthly Student-Faculty Staff Luncheons. “The purpose of those luncheons is for Christian students, faculty, and staff to get together and ask for prayer requests and then have a short devotional.” He has been able to organize and be involved in that.

Boylan points out that Christian professors can be a help and support for Christian students. Also, believers can find Christian-oriented activities on the campus. These should be an encouragement to families considering sending a young person to a secular campus to study.

Challenges

Christian professors, groups, and activities notwithstanding, a young person entering a secular university needs to know there will be adversity. Some challenges are inevitable. When addressing biological topics in both grad and undergrad courses, Wilson presents an overview of evolution and creation. He points out “that it takes faith to believe either evolution or creation. So it’s important to decide where they want to put their faith.” Students “listen intently and take down notes. Sometimes a couple stay afterwards and ask for clarification,” he says.

Wilson realizes that when taking “the specific proficiency test that teachers are required to pass to become ‘higher qualified,’ they are to ‘identify evidence that supports the theory of evolution.’” They are not asked to point out errors in evolution or to provide evidence that supports creation. This is indicative of “the bias that exists in favor of evolution and makes Christians and non-Christians alike feel that they must choose between the Bible and science.”

While the controversy presents an intellectual and moral challenge, a more personal challenge is the possibility of being attacked for Christian beliefs. Boylan has experienced such attacks. “That is a sad part about a university,” he says. He recalls that his attackers were simply expressing an individual philosophy of life. “When a Christian who is a scientist takes a position that differs from the views of those who don’t believe in God, the believer is considered a bigot or something. Some people take that seriously and use it as a way of attacking. I’ve been attacked, but that is part of the experience of being a Christian. We are to expect this. A non-believer is opposed to a believer. That has been true from Bible times down to the present.”

Opportunities

Contrary to some beliefs, scientists who are Christians are not unusual on a secular campus. Boylan says, “There were always, in my experience, professors who were identified as Christians by their lifestyle. It is a great opportunity for a person who is a Christian to be a scientist. You don’t hear about them in the newspaper, for they are not trying to force their beliefs on other people. They are living a Christian testimony and sometimes that offends people.” The university is a composite of many kinds of people. They are not all atheists; they are not all agnostics; there is room for Christians. But there are enough atheists and agnostics to cause some problems with what might be called a Christian testimony.”

Young scientists

To young people who are interested in studying science, these men have advice. Wilson strongly encourages them to enroll in a university where they can receive an excellent education in the science of their choice because there is clearly a need for Christian scientists. He suggests that they “learn how to think critically, which involves the sciences of observing and inferring. Learn to use those effectively.” He also suggests listening to Christian radio, because quite often preachers speak about philosophy and worldview. He says, “Watch the news and read the newspapers; read and listen critically. Be prepared.”

Boylan’s advice to young people interested in becoming scientists is to make sure that their own personal beliefs are established and that they don’t have questions concerning their own beliefs. He warns, “Make sure that you understand that there are oppositions in the world and understand the Christian position on those worldviews. Be strong enough so you will not waver from that position. I just read a portion in Psalm 119 that says teach me your commandments so I won’t be ashamed” (Psalm 119:5, 6). He points out that Christians should not be wishy washy about their own beliefs and that they need to be established in the Word. They have a responsibility—a responsibility to be a worthy Christian—“and that,” he says, “includes understanding the culture and staying within the bounds of culture, yet not backing away from being a strong Christian. That will show up in the life. You don’t have to be a buttonholer as a Christian. But you need to have a strong Christian life, and then you will be the greatest testimony. That is more telling than words sometimes. So I encourage anyone that wants to go into science, just make sure you understand that you are in the world and the world is not in itself a theistic world: it is an evil world. The Bible clearly teaches it: there is a worldly culture and there is a Christian culture. They interact, but one does not except [exclude] the other one in its interaction.”

Reflecting on the profession in which he spent his life, Boylan says that “science is a human endeavor directed toward the world that we live in. It’s a human endeavor. Humans carry it on, so anyone that pursues in a scientific fashion the understanding of the world in which we live can do that: Christian or non-Christian. Some people don’t believe that is true. There is no requirement to believe in God or to not believe in Him to be a scientist. Some of the great scientists of the world in the past and present are Christians.”

Parents, go ahead and help your future Nobel Prize winner fill out the application and scholarship forms for a secular university. As a part of settling your young person on the campus, seek out solidly Biblical Christian organizations in the area and visit a local church that supports the values you have been instilling in your child. Encourage your young adult to identify the professors who live Christian values, such as Boylan and Wilson, who are examples of the positive influences available on the university campus.


Liz Gifford (MA, Iowa State University) teaches English at Faith Baptist Bible College and formerly taught at Ballard Community H.S. and Iowa State University. She is a member of Slater Baptist Church, Slater, Iowa.

Discussion

[RP] Regarding the first part, could you please enlightened me on what has been thrown out with the error that is good stuff? Please give some specific examples.
Example from your post earlier…
[RP] The present scientific paradigm is evolution. All data is interpreted to fit within this paradigm. What doesn’t fit is rejected or re-interpreted. Science is not objective; it is what fits.
[Aaron] Believers pioneered science. They should still do it better than unbelievers. Somewhere along the line we dropped the ball.
You’re dreaming Aaron. We boast of many early scientists who were Christians and it is true. There may have been one time when Christianity was dominant in scientific thinking but that time has succumbed to an inevitable secularism. However, the fatal flaw of science had not surfaced at that point. Today, modern science is shaped in a secular, evolutionary paradigm. Can Christians function in this environment? The answer is a resounding YES when they realize that science is not the objective study of reality as it is often portrayed but it is the interpretation of the physical and biological world within a secular, evolutionary paradigm.
Your second paragraph here is especially confusing. Believers can only function in this environment if they realize it’s basically a load of refuse? … they can function as garbage collectors, I suppose.

There is nothing wrong with science itself. There is alot of trouble with the way many do science today. But there is much that is not a problem at all.

Saw a fascinating episode of Nova on NPR the other night… all about dogs. They went out of their way to use evolution-speak quite a few times, but the funny thing is, if you replaced the word “evolution” with “development” all the way through, there was almost nothing to disagree with. We know dogs have developed. We even know they’ve evolved (in the sense of varation within the kind).

But a major segment of the program focused on the question of whether dogs are different from wolves (in the sense of domestication) due to environmental factors or due to genetics. Experiments confirmed that it’s due to genetics. Guess what? This is true whether you’re an atheist or a devout Christian. The science involved is not affected by different “paradigms” in this case.

And there are many, many cases like it.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

First, I am a scientist and I graduated from Bob Jones University. I think it is unfair to classify a christian college as “second rate”. You really need to evaluate each program on it’s merits and not on the institution. I graduated from Bob Jones with a Chemistry degree and I would say that the program is equivalent to any other undergraduate program in the US. I did study one year at College of Charleston and Marquette University, I have also taken classes at a few other colleges such as Clemson. The textbooks, material covered and the knowledge of the instructors was identical or better at BJ than any of the other secular universities that I have been exposed to. The instructors all have PhD’s and post graduated work from reputable secular universities. Most of the professors continue to further their knowledge during the summers working on the grant work at area secular colleges. The textbooks for the most part are 100% identical to the text books considered “standards” in these fields. The nice thing that you get at BJ is that you get 1:1 time with the professors, where as in most secular colleges for some courses (such as labs) you are only interfacing with GA’s.

With that said, a christian college is not the end all. There are some programs that are significantly better at a secular college within the science field than you would get at a christian university. So this isn’t a wholesale endorsement, but just one example where some science programs are identical or better than a secular college. So my challenge is to really evaluate the programs to make the right choice.

My second comment is directed to RPittman. While I agree with your statement about science fitting into a paradigm, it doesn’t mean a christian scientist cannot operate within a secular scientific realm without either giving up his beliefs or refusing secular beliefs. You could be a surfactant chemist working on developing soaps without ever having to confront evolution or what most christians may view as a failed paradigm. I have worked for years within numerous science fields, making contributions and never having to confront an evolutionary world view in my work. It was never a part of it. That is not to say that there aren’t broad swathes of science exposed to an evolutionary world view. But there are equally large areas where you can operate. Second, you can also recognize the studies within an evolutionary framework as being scientific without having to embrace the evolutionary framework. I can accept that science sees a universe that is 15 billion years or more old, without having to accept evolution. I worked for some time at a particle collider in Illinois. The Big Bang was the predominate framework which structured the studies within this facility, but that didn’t stop me from working on determining subatomic particles. While most scientist were looking at this from a view into the “beginnings of the universe”, that didn’t stop me from look at the daily practical aspects of looking at subatomic particles. And it didn’t stop me from making a contribution to the field. I do agree with you that science in and of itself, in today’s framework is a very humanistic and very ungodly, but I don’t think it limits our ability to be involved, anymore than the humanistic and ungodly world around us limits our ability to be involved and make a difference.

Aaron, you are confusing some basic concepts. Like many Christians, you are espousing a popularized view of science. Science is NOT a pure, idealized quest for truth
I don’t that’s quite what I said. But we are clearly working from different definitions of science. Mine is pretty simple. It’s the study of the created world… or “immanent reality.” Some do it badly, some do it well. But what it is exists independently of how people do it.

You can call this “a popularized view” if you like, but the fact remains that “the study of the created world/immanent reality” needs a name. I’m going to keep calling it science.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[RP] Why not call it the study of creation?
Because “science” is a perfectly good word and has fewer syllables.
[RP] I don’t know why we need to speak of immanent reality unless we want to sound intellectual or philosophical.
No, precisely because of the confusion that exists among so many modern scientists. We do not believe that what we observe with the senses (or reason to) is all there is or even fully what is. What protects science from a truly “rationalistic paradigm” is the distinction between immanent reality and ultimate reality.
[RP] Of course, the most basic definition of science is knowledge but when we use it today we are usually referring to something that utilizes the scientific method. This brings it squared into the paradigm of modern science.
Not really. The scientific method is only “modern” in any negative sense if you vest it with power it doesn’t possess. It has no power to tell us what anything means, why anything matters, or fully what is real. But it does help us discover “reality as we know it” (sounds less hifalutin than “immanent reality” maybe?).
[RP] Aaron, it seems that you want to define science to fit your ideal but this simply is not what it is today. If you’re going to have a conversation with scientists and educated unbelievers, then you will be forced to modify your definition. See if it will fly on the evolution blogs.
I would suggest that I’m using a historical definition and not allowing people who do science badly to hijack the term. But there is, again, more overlap in the term in Christian usage and non-Christian usage than you seem to grant. Because so much of it is about measuring, observing, hypothesizing, testing, quantifying, etc., there is often no need to redefine anything.

To me, it’s a bit like fishing. Suppose after years of sane people fishing, a group of people comes to believe that fish are gods and that frying them and eating them gains you eternal life. They call the act of casting and reeling them in, “fishing,” just like normal people have for centuries. Of course, when I fish, I don’t believe anything remotely like they do about what a fish is or what catching it means or what eating it does for my soul. But I can still call it fishing and fish with the best of them because the act of catching them and reeling them in is pretty much the same.

Yes, we have different paradigms—to a degree. But should I start saying “fishing is just no good” because of these nut jobs?

I’m stubborn I guess. They didn’t invent it and I’m not giving them permission to take it away from the rest of us. (Besides that, they actually fish really well a good bit of the time despite their “paradigm”)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.