1

CONCEPTUAL NOTES ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION

I. HISTORICAL SURVEY OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIALOGUE

Anyone wishing to understand the interaction of science and religion needs to become
familiar with three major historical landmarks:

1. The Astronomical debates of the 16th and early 17th century

2. Newtonian mechanistic worldview in the late 17th and 18th century
3. Darwinian theory of human origin of the 19th century

1. The Astronomical Debates:

- During the medieval period, geocentric model (earth at the centre and other revolved
around it) was the main understanding of the solar system. This model was devised by
Claudius Ptolemy, Alexandrian astronomer in his book Amalgest.
- However, this geocentric understanding of the universe began to collapse in favour of
the heliocentric understanding of the universe in the 16th century where the sun is at
the centre with the earth and other planets revolving around the sun.
- This paradigm shift came to be known as the “Copernican Revolution” after the name
of the Polish Nicholas Copernicus who first claimed the heliocentric understanding of
the universe arguing that the planets moved in concentric circles around the sun. The
earth in addition of rotating around the sun also rotated on its own axis.
- Fresh controversy broke out over the heliocentric view of the solar system in Italy
during the early 17th century which eventually led to the Roman Catholic Church
condemning Galileo who supported the Copernicus interpretation of the solar system.
- Since, the heliocentric model of the solar system was against the teaching of the
church tradition basing on the Bible (Joshua 10:12-13, Psalm 93:1 & Psalm 104:5),
the model and the persons were heavily criticized.
- Galileo was then tried before the Roman inquisition in 1633 and remaind under house
arrest for the remaining of his days and his publications were also banned. It was only
in 1992 i.e. after 359 years that Pope John Paul II made an apology saying, “Galileo
sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who stirring in the depths
of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.”
- Galileo remained a strong believer to the end. He said, “I do not feel obliged to
believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, and intellect has intended
us to forgo their use.”

2. Newton Mechanistic Worldview:

- Newton led to the discovery through his laws of motion that the universe could be
thought of as great machine acting according to a fixed laws. This is often referred to
as a mechanistic worldview. The world as a machine suggested the idea of self-
sustaining and therefore did not require the existence of God.
- On the other hand, the success of Newton‟s mechanistic worldview led to a significant
religious development of God in terms of „Deism‟.
- The term „Deism‟ is often used in a general sense to refer to that view of God which
maintains God‟s creatorship but denies a continuing divine involvement with the
 2

creations. It is thus often contradicted with the belief of „Theism‟ i.e. continue divine
involvement with the creations.
- Thus, God as „Deism‟ have reduced God to a mere clockmaker where the maker of
the clock after finishing his job does not look.

3. Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:

- Darwin‟s first systematic theory of evolution came out in the form of two books
called „The Origin of Species‟ in 1859 and „The Descent of Man‟ in 1871.
- Darwin main arguments in these books were to demonstrate that species in this
world are not in fixed but always in the process of changing. So, for Darwin,
species had descended from a common ancestor but transmutation occurred that
resulted into a new species by „natural selection‟.
- Natural Selection is the process by which population of living organisms adapt in
response to the environment. Hence, species with good characteristics will have
more chance of survival as they will able to produce more offspring.
- Organism with traits that are best suited to the changing climate and environment
will survive the best. In other words, Natural Selection means „Survival of the
Fittest‟ and it can lead to speciation (formation of new species) and adaptive
radiation (evolution of single species to multiple species).
- Darwin constructed his theory of Natural Selection from the inspiration of
Thomas Malthus‟ book „Essay on the Principle of Population‟. For Malthus, a
well adapted species would be overwhelmed because a better adaption will
increase in their population.
- Thus, Darwin theory of evolution means that there is a fierce competition for
survival among the species and those who have a variation advantages i.e. able to
change quickly according to the environment will be more to survive.
- However, Darwin evolutionary theory contradicted the Christian belief in 2 ways:
1. It refutes the Doctrine of Creation and the existence of God.
2. The Descent of Man applies that humans and ape shared the common ancestor
which refutes the Genesis creation story.
- Among the Christians, there are two types of people towards Darwin‟s
Evolutionary Theory. One group who belongs to the evangelical tradition totally
rejected the theory whereas the other group believes in the presence of God during
the evolution. This people are called as the „theistic evolutionist‟ saying that there
is God who guided the whole process of evolution. Notable theistic evolutionists
are Henry Ward Beecher (Calvinist) and Benjamin B. Warfield (PTS).
- In 1950, Pope Pius XII believes in the origin of human body form the pre-existent
and living matter. But, human soul is a spiritual substance which cannot be
brought forth through transformation of matter but, created by God alone. Hence,
the special uniqueness of each person. Similarly, Pope John Paul II also agrees
with Pope Pius and he called the evolutionary theory as „more than a hypothesis‟.
- Pope Francis at the Pontifical Academy of Science in 2014 also says, “When we
read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God as a magician
with a magic wand able to do everything. But, that is not so. He created humans
and let them develop according to internal laws”.
 3

- Darwin religious conviction is doubtful. He was trained to be a clergyman but his

6 yrs journey in HMS Beagle drifted him away from becoming a clergyman.
Some asserts Darwin bed ridden conversion but it is not true. However, what is
clear is that Darwin is not a complete atheist and in his last letter to Prof William
Graham he says, “My inward conviction is that the universe is not the result of
chance”.
- Looking at the different archaeological findings of various fossils, the theory of
evolution cannot be rejected and falsified. But, at the same time, since human
have soul, which other creatures do not have. So, Darwin theory of evolution
cannot be taken as correct in toto. After all it is just a theory.

----------------------------------------

II. NEO–DARWINISM
- One of the problems that Darwin had with his theory of evolution is the variation
of genes (genetic) i.e. how genetic traits are inherited from one generation to the
next and so, Neo-Darwinism is the update version of Darwin evolutionary theory
with genetics explanation of evolution.
- The importance of Neo-Darwinism is that this theory explained the persistence of
genetic variations (raw materials for evolution) that Charles Darwin could not
explain satisfactorily with the help of Mendel‟s theory of inheritance.
- Neo-Darwinism is the synthesis of Darwin theory of evolution with Mendel
theory of modern genetics or Mendel laws of inheritance in pea plant. It is also
called as „modern synthesis‟ or „evolutionary synthesis‟.
- In the Mendel laws of inheritance each pair of alleles (different forms of genes)
separates during gamete formation. Offspring inherit one allele from each parent.
- Four forces of evolution contribute to changes in allele frequencies i.e. random
genetic drift, gene flow, mutation pressure and natural selection. Out of these four,
natural selection is the only evolutionary force that makes organisms to have
better adaptation to the environment.

------------------------------------------------

III. BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

1. The Expanding Universe
- Before we discuss the Big Bang Theory, it is important to discuss the concept of
the „expanding universe‟ as Big Bang Theory is the outcome of the discovery that
the universe is not static but dynamic and expanding.
- For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with a basic question about the size
of the universe. Does the universe expand or does it have an edge? If it has an
edge, where will our hand go if we keep it in the edge of the universe?
- Edwin Huddle, Astronomer at Caltech in 1929 measured the redshifts of a number
of distant galaxies. He found that the redshifts of the distant galaxies increased.
The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding.
 4

- The Universe is like a balloon with many dots. When the balloon is blown, the
distances between the dots increases in size and distance uniformly. The universe
is expanding in the same way.
- Once the scientist understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately
felt that it would be very small in the past. At some point, it may be a single point
called cosmic egg. Due to high internal pressure this cosmic egg explode creating
matter, time and space i.e universe.
- Because of this initial explosion, all the matters like stars, galaxies etc are moving
further away from each other as we observed it today. Such an idea led to the
emergence of the Big Bang Theory

2. The Big Bang Theory

- One of the most popular theories for the origin of the universe which is accepted
by most scientist and many Christians is the „Big Bang Theory‟. The term Big
Bang was coined by Physicist Fred Hoyle in 1949.
- According to this theory, the universe was created in a big bang which occurred
some 10-20 billion years old (13.7 yrs) and the radiation from that super hot event
can still be seen around the universe which provides proof for the Big Bang
Theory.
- Georges Lenaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian Priest, Astronomer and Professor of
Physics at the Catholic University of Leuven was the one who proposed the now
famous Big Bang Theory.
- For him, the particles of the whole universe existed as a single particle (primeval
atom) which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time of the
universe that continues to this day.
- But many scientists do not believe in the Big Bang Theory and preferred „Steady
State Theory‟ for the origin of the universe as they believe that universe had no
beginning and is eternal.
- To disprove this Steady State Theory, two American physicists, Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson of the Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the earth is
bathed in a faint glow of radiation in 1965.
- They believed that this radiation came from the Big Bang explosion as the
universe must have resembled a white hot fireball in the first moment after the Big
Bang explosion.
- Gradually, as the universe cooled down, the fireball becomes less but its radiation
did not disappear. Thus, it was diffuse glow of this ancient radiation dating back
to the birth of the universe that Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered.

3. Future of the Universe

- There can be two assumptions in the future of the universe in the process of its
expanding
- The first assumption is that the gravitational attraction between the different
galaxies will cause the expansion to slow down and eventually stop. The galaxies
will then started to slow down which will make the universe contracts and finally
comes back to its original infinite density which is called „Big Crunch‟.
 5

- The second assumption is that the universe expands with a strong force that the
gravitational pull will never stop. This means it will expand forever. Stephen
Hawkins also says, “The present evidence suggests that the universe will expand
forever.” So, Big Crunch will never happen.
- Out of the two assumptions, it is very natural to think that the expansion will slow
down and re-collapse i.e forming another cosmic egg and which will explode
again forming the next big bang.
- However, recent observation shows that the universe expansion is not slowing
down but accelerating. Hence, if the universe keeps on expanding then in about
10-30 billion years all the stars will die forming a black hole.
- Black holes are region of space in which gravitational force is too strong that
nothing can escape including light. If light cannot survive nothing will survive.
This black hole will totally consume everything in the universe which will become
complete dark and cold. This is called „Cold End‟ (Mt 24:35).

Arguments from the Christian Perspective:

1. Many Christian scientists believe that in the process of the Big Bang Theory. God is the
orchestrator i.e. God is the one who manages, and coordinates a series of complex workflows
and tasks, ensuring they run harmoniously and efficiently.
2. Christians who believe in the Big Bang Theory interpret Genesis creation account in a
metaphorical way saying that the creation of materials should be understood in a long period
of days and not in a literal sense of 24 hours.
3. The Big Bang begins from the „Cosmic Egg/Singularity”. But, no scientist can give the
answer to the creation of the cosmic egg. Hence, where fact cannot answer faith came into
existence. So, there should be „someone‟ behind the cosmic egg.

------------------------------------------

IV. ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE

- The Anthropic Cosmological Principle was proposed by Brandon Carter in Poland in
1973 during a two-week seminar commemorating Copernicus 500th birthday.
- The main emphasis of Anthropic Principle is that the beginning of the universe cannot
be a chance or mere coincidence, but there is an „intelligent designer‟ who designs for
the possibility of „life‟. In short, according to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle,
the universe is finely tuned by someone to make it a place for existence.
- Some of the examples of „fine tuning‟ are:
1. If the initial explosion of the Big Bang had differed in strength by one part in 10 to
the power of 60, the universe would not have existed.
2. If the gravitational fine structure constant were slightly smaller, stars and planets
would not have been able to form.
3. If the electromagnetic was slightly larger, the stars would not be hot enough to
warm planets to maintain life. If slightly smaller, the stars would burn.
- So, what will be the religious significance of the Anthropic Principle or the finely
tuned structure of the universe? As we look into the universe and see that matters
worked out accurately together so well for the benefit of creations, we cannot deny
 6

that the Universe seems to know that „we are coming‟ and because of which randomly
provide the needful materials for our existence. And to make that happen, there
should be someone behind it.
- Anthropic Cosmological Principle is very much in line with the Teleological
Argument for the existence of God wherein the Teleological arguments is a
philosophical argument for the existence of God which states that complexity and
order in the universe cannot happened by chance but require the presence of a
designer who is God.
- Similarly, Paley watch analogy also called watchmaker analogy is another important
example for Anthropic Cosmological Argument where Paley says that watch is made
of a complex device. But, it is known that the mechanism of a watch is not develop by
mere chance or coincidence, there is an intelligent watchmaker. Likewise, the
complexity and order in the universe imply a creator.

----------------------------------------------

V. STATE STEADY THEORY

- State Steady Theory is one of the important theories for the origin of universe which
was first proposed by Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle in 1948. It was
Hoyle who put much effort to popularize it.
- State Steady Theory was presented in alternative to the Big Bang Theory as unlike the
Big Bang Theory it has no beginning and no end. As its name indicates it existed in
the same state. Moreover, the theory that endorses no beginning and no end, it leaves
not room for the presence of God that was much possible in the Big Bang Theory.
- According to the theory, universe does expand but the galaxies do not move away, the
distance remains the same as new matters are formed simultaneously in order to keep
the density of the spaces between the galaxies the same.
- However, the Steady State Theory was falsified with the discovery of the Cosmic
Microwave Background (CMB) where a weak radiation was found in the space. If
according to State Steady Theory has no beginning unlike the Big Bang, and then it is
almost impossible to explain the origin of this radiation.
- Stephen Hawkins also remarks “The Steady State Theory was what Karl Popper would
call a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by
observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified.”

Arguments from the Christian Perspective:

1. Though Fred Hoyle put effort to give no space for God‟s existence, the presence of matter
to continuously fill in the gaps of the universe is questionable. Unless there is a „prime
mover‟ the continual occurrence of matter needs to be answered with clarity.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument says:

 Everything that has a beginning needs a cause
 The universe has a beginning
 If the universe has a beginning, it has a cause
 And that person that made the cause is „God‟
 7

In trying to connect the doctrine of creation with modern cosmology like the Big Bang
Theory and State Steady Theory, Pope Pius XII tried to connect the biblical creation ex
nihilo with the beginning of the universe as both forms out of nothing.

--------------------------------------------------------------

VI. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF CREATION

1. Meaning and Introduction:
- Doctrine of Creation is fundamental in Christian doctrine. It is the basic assertion
about the relationship between God and the world. It is an affirmation that the
whole universe is absolutely dependent upon the sovereignty of God.
- God as creator has it biblical foundation in Genesis 1&2. Therefore, the doctrine
of God as creator is linked with the biblical authority.
- The chief purpose of creation is to glorify God. Creation is God‟s will to express
his love and goodness by giving reality to creation. For Calvin, there was no other
reason than God‟s goodness that the world is created.
- Irish scholar and Archbishop Ussher of the 17th century calculated the creation to
take place in 4004 BCE. Until the 18th century, almost all theologians assumed
that the Genesis account of creation is a literal, historic and scientific account of
creation.
- However, from the 18th century, the age of the creation story began to be
questioned. Through biblical criticism, it was pointed out that there were two
types of Genesis creation account. In addition, geologist, biologist and
archaeologist began to question the traditional Christian view of creation.
- Besides, Charles Darwin the British Naturalist published his Magnus Opus „The
Origin of Species‟ though Natural Selection in November, 1859 which challenges
the biblical doctrine of creation.

2. Themes of the Doctrine of Creation

i) God‟s creation is first of all to make an affirmation about God. By calling God as
„creator‟, Christian faith affirms the otherness, transcendence and lordship of God.
The infinite Being and maker of heaven and earth. Creation is an act of „sovereign
freedom‟.
ii) The doctrine of creation shows that the world as a whole and all beings are
radically dependent on God. Humans are finite that our very existence is a gift
from the infinite Being i.e. God.
iii) Doctrine of Creation shows the goodness of creations. With all its contingency
and limitation, God admired the creation as God says “And God saw that it was
good (Gen 1:10). When God says, it is good, God means:
- God rejects the concept of dualism, the belief of good and bad.
- God values all creations. There is no high or low position among the creations.
- Though fallen due to disobedience, God still loves the world that God sent his
beloved son, Jesus Christ.
 8

iv) The theme of the doctrine of creations shows the co-existence and
interdependence of all created beings. The reason why God created woman, and
telling the two human beings to multiple shows creations to be interdependent to
each other. Moreover, humans are appointed by God to be „steward‟ for all
creations.
v) The doctrine of creation shows that God the creator is purposive and the world
that God has created is dynamic and purposeful. This means, God did not created
things for nothing but has a meaningful purpose to move towards God.

3. Models of Creating the World:

i) Construction Model: This model portrays God as the builder and construction of the
world (Ps 127:1). It also brings out the skill and wisdom of the creator. However, the
model has some weaknesses that it gives shape to something that already existed.
ii) Emanation Model: This model suggests that creation can be regarded as an
overflowing of the creative energy of God just as light derives from the Sun. The
Phrase in the Nicene Creed „light form light‟ hinted this model. But, this model
implies an involuntary emanation rather than a conscious decision to create.
iii) Artistic Model: Many Christian writers from various periods speak of creation as
handiwork of God comparing to a work of art. This model appears to convey the idea
of personal expression in the creation. But, the model is weak as it leads to the idea of
pre existent matter.
iv) Creationism Model: The model refers to the concept that the world has been created
by God and rejected any theory for the existence of matter including the theory of
evolution. They hold the idea that God not only created the universe but constantly
involve in giving sustenance and destruction when it requires. Creationism model also
refers to the view that each soul of a person is created by God against the Platonic
view of the pre existent of the soul or emanation from God.

4. Alternative Theories of Origins:

The Genesis account says that in the beginning there was God and nothing else and that it
was through God‟s word that everything came into existence. But, besides this theory, there
are other theories for the origins of the world.
i) Materialism: It holds that matter is the prior reality out of which mind develops and
that the universe is eternal in its own right. There is no need for God, for matter has
always been there and is self-existent.
ii) Pantheism: It assumes that the world itself is God or part of God and there is no need
for creation. Everything is a manifestation of God and is identical with God.
iii) Illusion or Maya: This theory strongly affirms that all created things are in fact
illusion and there are no real things.
iv) Dualism: According to this model, there are two opposing forces i.e light and
darkness. The material world originates from darkness and therefore is opposed to
God.

-----------------------------------------------
 9

VII. CREATION OUT OF NOTHING (CREATIO EX NIHILO)

1. Meaning
- T.F Torrance says, “The creation of the universe out of nothing does not mean the
creation of the universe out of something that is nothing but out of nothing at all.
It is not created out of anything, it came into being through the absolute fiat of
God‟s word in such a way that whereas previously there was nothing, the whole
universe came into being.”
- What Torrance means to say here is that creation is not an emanation from God or
something that is in God or part of God or created out of God but God freely
brings into being another reality utterly different from God‟s own reality.
- John Polkinghorne also writes that the free act of God to create something distinct
from God self is vividly expressed in the phrase creation ex nihilo.
- So, when we say creation out of nothing, we affirm that without God‟s initiating
creation only God exists.
- There are two important reasons for the development of the doctrine creatio ex
nihilo
i) It is a reaction against the Greek eternity of the world also called as „eternal
universe‟ as they believed that universe has no beginning or end. This is supported
by Aristotle as he argued that the concept of a beginning or end implies a "before"
or "after," which is impossible in the making of the universe.
ii) The doctrine is an attempt to retain a more biblical perspective on the issues of
the origin of the world in order to refute the development of scientific cosmology.

2. Theological Importance of Creatio ex nihilo

- Creation ex nihilo reinforces the idea of God‟s aseity or necessary existence.
- God‟s bringing everything other than himself into being reveals that all else is
contingent in its being.
- Creation Creatio ex nihilo shows that anything outside the universe apart from
God is a creature and grounded in God‟s creative act.
- Creatio ex nihilo underlines the doctrine of divine freedom i.e God acted freely by
bringing about the created order without relying upon pre-existing materials.
- Creation ex nihilo exhibits God‟s omnipotence. If God creates from the pre-
existent materials then this would limits God‟s potentiality.

3. The Earth was a formless void (Gen 1:2)

- When God created the world, it was a formless void. Here, it means to say that in
the beginning the created world lacked order and shaped.
- The Hebrew word for a formless void is tohu wabohu. Etymologically, it means
„unproductive and uninhabited land‟. The term tohu is also found in Deut 32:10
(Songs of Moses) where tohu parallels the word „deserts‟. So, the earth was before
uninhabitable and inhospitable for human to live like the desert.
- However, despite the threatening desert, God protects and matures Israel during
their life in the wilderness. Similarly, although the earth was non-terrestrial God
through the Spirit (wind) formed it into an inhabited place.
 10

- The Hebrew word for „spirit‟ and „wind‟ are the same and is here rightly
understood as the creative spirit of God.

--------------------------------------------

VIII. MODELS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIALOGUE

1. IAN BARBOUR’S MODEL

A number of typologies are set up for bridging science and religion. However, physicist Ian
Barbour‟s typology remains the most widely used where he mentioned four typologies
between science and religion.
i) Conflict: Science claims that the world is made up of matter alone and there is no
room for mind, spirit or God. Moreover, they claim that science is the only way to
obtain true knowledge. Religion tells us nothing of real value about the world or
humanity.
ii) Independence: It asserts that science and religion are totally isolated to each other.
Thus, there is neither conflict nor interaction. Some also argue that they used different
methods such as reason and faith, fact and values, objective and subjective etc.
iii) Dialogue: This model of relating science and religion includes boundary questions
and methodological parallels. While science can tell us a great deal about the world
still there are questions that science can never answer and vice versa. In such cases,
giving answer through dialogue is very much useful and necessity.
iv) Integration: This model is the synthesis of science and religion into a single
framework. For instance, Natural theology is the attempt to understand God through
human rational though, observation and experience of the natural world. In natural
theology, we can see the combination of God and the scientific human effort for
objective truth.

2. TED PETER’S MODEL

Ted Peters is a Lutheran theologian presently a Professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific

Lutheran Theological Seminary. For him, there are 8 models of science and religion dialogue.

i) Scientism: Also known as secular humanism. Scientism is an ideology which is built

upon the assumption that there exists only one reality i.e the material world. Further,
science is the only valid method for the knowledge of the material reality.
ii) Scientific Imperialism: This model is slightly different from the scientism model as
it seeks to conquer the territory of theology than to eliminate its enemy. Scientific
imperialism claims that knowledge of the divine comes from science rather than
revelation.
iii) Ecclesiastical Authoritarianism: Some leaders in the Roman Catholic tradition
perceived science as a threat to the church and they tried to put it under the control of
ecclesiastical authority which according to them is founded on God‟s revelation.
iv) Scientific Creationism: They emphasize biblical authoritarianism. Scientific
creationist affirms:
- Creation of the world out of nothing
 11

- The insufficiency of natural selection to explain the process of evolution

- Separate ancestor for ape and human
v) Two-language Theory: According to this model, science speaks one language i.e the
language of fact and religion speaks the language of values. They have their own
sovereign territory. For Albert Einstein, science can say only what is but not what
should be and religion deals with the evaluation of human thought and action. Each
language is restricted to its respective territory.
vi) Hypothetical consonance: The term hypothetical consonance suggests that there are
some areas of connection or relevance between the understanding of nature as
conceived by natural science and various religious traditions. It begins with the
assumption that science and religion both pursue truth about the same reality.
vii) Ethical Overlap: An ethical vision to have a better society is the concern for
everyone. So, this model acknowledges that both religion and science have common
ethical concern i.e to make the earth a better place to live in.
viii) New Age Spirituality: New Age Spirituality attempts to overcome modern dualism
between science and religion and attempt to achieve synthetic spiritualities that
harmonizes science and religion. For e.g. New Age Physicist attempt to combine
Hindu mysticism and physics.

3. MIKAEL STENMARK’S MODEL

Mikael Stenmark is a Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the Department of
Theology, Uppsala University, Sweden. Stenmark is the author of "Rationality in Science,
Religion and Everyday Life" (1995), for which he was awarded The John Templeton
Foundation Prize for Outstanding Books in Theology and the Natural Sciences in 1996.

i) Irreconcilability Model:
- According to this model, science and religion cannot be reconciled if they still
maintain their respective identities.
- John Worrall, Philosopher of Science says, “Science and religion are in
irreconcilable conflict. There is no way in which you can be both properly
scientifically minded and true religious believer.”
ii) Reconciliation/Contact Model:
- According to this model, science and religion today can be combined or
reconciled while still maintaining their respective identities and distinctive
features.
- Francis Collin, leader of the Human Genome Project says, “In my view, there is
no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in God.”
iii) Independence Model:
- According to this model, science and religion are incompatible because they are
two completely separate entities. They have their own distinctive domain and
methods.
- Stephen Jay Gould says, “The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm:
what is the universe made of and why does it work this way. The magisterium of
religion covers the question the ultimate meaning and the moral value.”
 12

iv) Replacement Model:

- According to this model, science could in the near future replace religion i.e. the
domain of science can be expanded in such a way that it may become our new
religion.
- Edward O. Wilson writes, “We must have a story to tell about where we came
from and why we are here. Perhaps science is a continuation or new and better
tested ground to attain the same end.”

Reconciliation Model is again divided many sub models:

i) Reformative Reconciliation Model:

- Reformative view of reconciliation model is the idea that science and religion can
be reconciled if one or both of them reformulated in some way or another.
- Philip E. Johnson embraces religion-priority reformative view where he says that
if science could modify some parts of the evolutionary theory then science and
religion can combine.
- Gordon Kaufman embraces science-priority reformative view where he believes
that if the concept of God is reformulated then science and religion could be
reconcile.
ii) Supportive Reconciliation Model:
- According to this model, science and religion can be reconciled not because one
or both can change but because they support or confirm each other in one way or
another.
- Richard Swinburne and Keith Ward.
iii) Conservative Reconciliation Model:
- According to this model, it is primarily science that needs to change its content
whereas traditional Christianity is to a very extent satisfactory as it is.
- Philip Johnson, Dembski and Alvin Plantinga.
iv) Traditional Reconciliation Model:
- For this model, science might need to change some of its content whereas
Christianity certainly needs to change some but not most part of its traditional
content.
- Alistair E. McGrath, Polkinghorne and Francis Collins
v) Liberal Reconciliation Model:
- According to this model, science is fine as it is, it does not need to be changed. It
is Christianity that needs to change most of its traditional contents.
- Ian Barbour, Sallie McFague and Arthur Peacocke.
vi) Postmodern or Constructivist Reconciliation Model:
- For this model, neither science nor Christianity is acceptable as it is. Both needs to
change radically.
- Nietzsche, Derrida and Thomas Kuhn.
 13

4. INDIAN CONTRIBUTIONS

There are three important Indian Christians who made an enormous contribution in the
dialogue between Science and Religion:

i) Job Kohzhamthadam: He is a Professor of philosophy of science in the Jnana Deepa

Vidyapeeth (Pontifical institute of Philosophy and Religion), Pune. His whole idea in science
and religion can be summarized by the model of „constructive collaboration‟. For him,
science and religion should not attack but they can be comrades in a common cause for the
following reasons:

- Science and religion are fully integrated in the beginning. The separation came about
mainly because of the unjustified claims about science on one hand and inadequate founded
belief in religion on the other hand.

- Towards the beginning of the 20th century, the claims made by the mechanical philosophy,
supporters of positivism and scientism collapsed as these claims were based on misplaces
hopes rather than on reality.

- Developments in history and philosophy of science have contributed towards changing the
traditional understanding of science as purely objective and based on observational fact.

- But, the works of Paul Geyerabend, Thomas Kuhn etc., established the fact that science is
not theory free but theory lade. These philosophers found that scientific discoveries depends
on both scientific and not scientific factors and that faith plays a pivotal role.

- Just science there had been a lot of changes in Christian faith. Many changes have come in
the understanding and interpretation of the Bible and revelation.

ii) Kuruvilla Pandikattu: He is another well-known scholar in the field of science and
religion. He is a Professor of science and religion as Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth.

- He believes that the dialogical interaction between science and religion will lead to a new
vision of God, world and humans. Though he sees the evil effect of technological revolution,
but to condemn it is not useful. Rather, we need to befriend without demonizing it.

- For Pandikattu, neither scientific nor religious domain can be absolute. Both can learn to
take each other seriously through sharing one‟s idea.

- Pandikattu brings out four elements in science and religion interface i.e. admire, advise,
admonish and advance.

- In the process of dialogue, Pandikattu further underline four vitals parts i.e
acknowledgement, accommodation, acceptance and affirmation.

iii) Sarojini Henry:

3.1 Conflict
3.2 Independent:
3.3 Partnership
 14

IX. GENESIS AS ANCIENT COSMOLOGY

- Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology i.e it does not attempt to describe cosmology in
modern terms or address modern questions.
- The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their scientific
understanding of the cosmos.
- They did not know that the stars were sun; they did not know that the earth was
spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much
further away than the moon or even further than the birds flying in the air.
- They believed that the sky was material, solid enough to support the residence of
deity as well as to hold back waters.
- Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science
embedded in it. This approach is called as „concordism‟.
- This approach attempts to „translate‟ the culture and text for the modern reader.
But, the problem is, we cannot translate their cosmology to our cosmology. If we
accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we needs to interpret is as ancient
cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology.
- Another problem with concordism is that it assumes that the text should be
understood in reference to current scientific consensus, which would mean that it
would neither correspond to last century‟s scientific consensus nor to that which
may develop in the next century.
- Suppose, if we intent on making God‟s revelation correspond to science, we have
to ask which science. We are aware that science is dynamic rather than static.
What is accepted true today may not be accepted as true tomorrow.
- So, we gain nothing by bringing God‟s revelation into accordance with today‟s
science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated God‟s
revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood.
- As a result, it is best to interpret Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology because trying to
interpret in the concept of modern cosmology can create confusion and
disagreement.

X. GENESIS AS FUNCTIONAL COSMOLOGY

- In Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, Walton argues that Gen 1 should be read as
the creation of an ordered/functional structure rather than actual acts of material
creation.
- According to Walton, his first intention “is to understand the texts but also to
demonstrate that a functional ontology pervaded the cognitive environment of the
ancient Near East”.
- For Walton, when considering Gen 1:5, he asked, “Why didn‟t God call the light
„light?‟ but day” His conclusion is that it is more than the creation of „light‟; it is
the function of the light i.e. day.
- With this idea as his foundation, Walton uses Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology to
describe how Gen 1 was never intended to be an account of material origins (land,
water, animals, man, etc.), but the focus of Gen 1, like the rest of the ancient Near
Eastern world, was to bring order by looking at functions
 15

XI. THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE PROBLEM OF ADAM

These are the Problem of Adam and the Genesis account that can arise if organisms evolve
through Natural Selection.

1. Raises question on the historical Adam: If the Theory of Evolution is historical and if all
creations originated form a minute organism through Natural Selection then the Genesis
account and the person and work Adam is to be questioned. All the story of human salvation
beginning from the Garden of Eden to the salvific act of Christ will be meaningless.

2. The concept of Sin: If the historical Adam is not taken to be real in the expense of
believing the Theory of Evolution, the concept of the original sin has no meaning, which
subsequently questioned the necessity of Christ and his redemptive act. And if humans
evolved gradually through Natural Selection, it is difficult to pinpoint a moment when "sin"
entered the world, which complicates traditional Christian doctrines about the fall and
redemption. If Adam is not a historical figure, this parallel loses its significance, and the
theological foundation of original sin is undermined.

3. Allegorical Interpretation: Genesis account, especially from chp 1-11 is often understood as
a myth or to see it as an allegorical interpretation, wherein, Adam should not be understood as a
human figure else, as representing the whole humanity (Adama). However, this approach raises
serious theological concerns, particularly on Christ's role as the "second Adam." If Adam is
not a real person but rather a symbolic figure, it complicates the traditional understanding of
sin's origin and the need for redemption through Christ, who is viewed as countering the
historical Adam's disobedience.

4. Question the Imago Dei: We all are aware that humans are created in the Image of God
and scholars have proposed the different aspects of being in the image of God like Structural
Image, Functional Image and Relational Image to be particular. But, if creations evolved
through Natural Selection, the concept of human created in the Image of God is questioned
and the uniqueness of human beings in the process of God‟s creation is shattered.

5. The future life: One of the biggest problems that the Theory of Evolution through Natural
Selection creates is the future and the on-going process of creations and humans in particular.
The challenges that the Theory of Evolution holds is that it has an amazing beginning but not
an excellent ending. Where and how do human evolution process ends? Is the evolutionary
process stops at the human stage or is there any more developmental stage? If the historical
Adam, the Fall and the restoration of human through the redemptive act of Christ is nothing
than the future of all creations is abstract, empty and dark.

XII. GOD OF THE GAPS

- The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to concept in which “God” is invoked when science
is incapable of explaining.
- In other words, the “gaps” where scientific knowledge cannot find the solution are
explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”
 16

- God of the gaps argument puts God as a “backup” explanation for those things which
cannot explain by natural phenomena.
- This leads some to the conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute
Being of whom Scripture testifies.

Two concepts in the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument

- Firstly, God is inserted only where science can‟t explain. Till then, God presence
is not a necessity. So, this understanding diminishes the potentiality of God and
places God as number two.
- Secondly, in the other way, it is an important argument for God‟s existence as
there are some points where science cannot explain everything. For e.g.
i) In the Big Bang Theory, the cosmic egg is the starting point of everything. Due
to certain high pressure it explodes forming matter, time and space. But, science
cannot explain beyond the cosmic egg. So, there is someone behind it.
ii) Phenomenon like lightning, comet, earthquake has occurred for which no
scientific explanation is currently available. Therefore, God must be the one who
caused the phenomenon to occur.

Problems with God of the Gaps

- The problem with a God of the Gaps argument is that it relegates God only to a
portion of creation — the portion that we don't understand yet.
- We can only see God in the areas of nature which we do not understand, rather
than seeing him most clearly in those which we do understand.
- The main problem with a God of the Gaps apologetic is that the gaps are getting
smaller with every passing year i.e. as scientific invention rises, an increasing
number of phenomena are explained scientifically. Therefore, the role of God
decreases accordingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------

XIII. ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND MIRACLES

- The relationship between miracles and science is a debatable topic as many people
believe that they overlap or conflict to each other. On the contrary, there are also
scientists, theologians and philosophers who believe that God, the omnipotent can
work beyond the laws of nature
- Miracle is an event caused by special Divine action that would not or could not be
able to occur through regular course in the nature.
- Augustine and Aquinas defined miracle as a divine action that transcends the ordinary
course of nature and so generate something that we would never expect to happen on
its own.
- Till the middle of the 18th century, there was no debate regarding the issue of miracles
until David Hume published his essay „Of Miracles‟ in his book Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding. According to Hume, science and miracle cannot go together
as he believed that science goes along with the natural law where no miracles can
change its course.
- The argument of Hume against miracle are:
 17

1. Miracles by definition is a violation of natural law

2. The laws of nature are built upon the highest degree of probability
3. Miracle definition is based on the lowest degree of probability
4. Wise people should always base on the highest degree of probability
5. Hence, wise people will not believe in the lowest degree of probability i.e.
miracles
- Another argument of Hume against miracles are:
1. No miracle can be established without sufficient evidence in its favour
2. Sufficient evidence must include sufficient number of witnesses
3. But, there never has been a sufficient witnesses to support the claim of
miracles
4. Hence, no miracle has ever been established
- The argument of Alastair McKinnon against miracle are:
1. A natural happening is what occurs in the actual course of events
2. A miracle by definition would be contrary to the actual course of events
3. But, nothing can be contrary to the actual course of events
4. Therefore, miracles cannot happen
- The argument of Anthony flew against miracle are:
1. Miracles are unrepeatable events
2. Science are repeatable events
3. But, the evidence for the repeatable events is much more than unrepeatable
events
4. Critical man would never base his arguments on the unrepeatable events.
5. Hence, critical man will never believe in miracles
- Apart from this philosopher, German theologian Rudolf Bultmann also does not
believe in the works of miracles. He maintains that modern humans who accept
scientific view cannot believe that miraculous events can occur. If we are to believe
miracles than we have to violate certain principle laws of nature and for Bultmann
that is impossible.
- Those people who denied the possibilities of miracles always hold to the Principle of
Causality. According to this principle, event follows another not only in regularity but
also with certainty. For e.g. if we push the chair, it will move, if we drop the pen, it
will always move. If miracles are to happen the chair should not move or the pen
should not move when it is push or drop. But, that cannot happen and so miracles
cannot happen.
- However, in spite of all these arguments, there can be some possibilities for the
chance of experiencing miracles i.e. to acknowledge God as sovereign, the
omnipotent who controls everything. If God is the creator of the world, he is also
definitely the creator of the nature and its law. And so, the creator can of course act
within and beyond the laws of nature.
- The argument by the Theist for miracles are:
1. An omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolent God exists
2. An omnipotent God can do anything that is possible. God uncontrollable
3. Miracles are not impossible
4. Therefore, miracles can occur.
 18

- John Lennox attack David Hume proposition of his view against miracles saying,
“Newton Laws of Gravitation tells me that if I drop an apple it will fall towards the
centre of the earth. But the law does not prevent someone intervening and catching
the apple as it descends. In other words, the law predicts what will happen, provided
there is no change in the conditions under which the experiment is conducted.”
- Francis Collins also remarks, “If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he
is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside
of space and time. So, if God chose to intervene from time to time in the natural world
by allowing the occurrence of miraculous events, I do not see why that is illogical
possibility.” ([Link]

--------------------------------------------------------