Science and Faith in an Evolving Creation

An astronomer says science and religion, and evolution and creation, are not mutually exclusive. Rather, one gathers evidence in order to understand the "what" of the universe, while the other speaks to the source and the meaning of all that is.

When asked whether he believes in creation or evolution, Dr. William Stoeger, S.J., cosmologist and Jesuit priest at the Vatican Observatory, answers yes, elucidating the difficulty in answering poorly phrased questions.¹ Pitting creation against evolution presents people with a false choice. Nearly 12,000 clergy members across a spectrum of Christian denominations (and, recently, Jewish communities) have publicly affirmed this sentiment in "The Clergy Letter Project."²



Nevertheless, throughout the United States, the mere mention of the word evolution has a polarizing effect across and within many communities. We witness this effect in the frequent attempts to modify science curricula in public schools (not to mention the plethora of Jesus and Darwin fish that adorn the backs of automobiles). Similarly, the word creation can cause scientists to wince, in many cases due to its frequent use as an alternative to "believing in" evolution.

Three Major Issues
One source of conflict arises from the stance that the opening chapters of Genesis should be interpreted as literally true in a historic and scientific sense. Indeed, this view is held by the proponents of Young Earth Creationism and at least some adherents of Intelligent Design (ID),³ but my experiences as a scientist and ELCA layperson suggest that for many Christians three major issues contribute to negative reactions to science, apart from hermeneutics:

1. misunderstanding of what science is,
2. language or semantics — the interpretation of words that have different meanings in different contexts, and
3. fear that the scientific picture of an evolving universe, which is immense in terms of both time and space, lets God get too big and renders humanity insignificant.

As a scientist, I'm most qualified to address the first issue: misunderstanding of what science is. My frequent interactions with the public give me some insight regarding the second issue: language or semantics.

On the other hand, my training as a scientist hasn't helped me manage my own fears any better than the next person. My knowledge of the scientific principles by which an airplane flies does little to quell the occasional terror I've experienced ever since my spouse inadvertently took us through a thundercloud in a twin-engine plane on a trip to the Bahamas several years ago. Since that episode, the slightest bit of turbulence in an aircraft can result in my paralysis.

So, regarding the third issue, I can only offer that if one starts from a position of faith, the splendor of the universe discovered through scientific exploration can inspire the same religious awe expressed thousands of years ago in Psalm 8:3, 4.⁴

What Is Science?
Science is a process of exploration by which we deepen our understanding of how the universe works. Science uses the beautiful language of mathematics to describe and make predictions about the universe and its constituents. The fact that we can do this is a remarkable and profound mystery. Without this ability, science would not be possible. Science doesn't speak to the meaning of the universe or life, or to the question of why there is a material universe (or multiverse⁵) that can be described by mathematics in the first place.

Over a period of centuries, scientific exploration has revealed that the universe is ever changing, in both a physical and a biological sense. The word evolution refers to this change. Much as geologists and biologists trace out Earth's history by studying fossil and other records deposited in rock layers over time, we astronomers have our own fossil record of the universe in the form of light emitted by objects across the vast distances of space.

Because light travels at a finite, albeit very fast, speed of about six trillion miles per year, the further out into space we look, the further back in time we see. That is, the light we see today from an object that is at a distance of one billion light years, started its journey to us one billion years ago, so we see this object as it appeared one billion years ago. What astronomers see as we look further and further out into space is a universe that has changed remarkably through the eons.

Putting together what discoveries have revealed, we can construct a timeline of the universe from its birth about 13.7 billion years ago, through the era of the formation of the first stars and galaxies less than a billion years afterwards, to the ongoing evolution of galaxies, stars, and planetary systems. Other than hydrogen, helium, and lithium, which were produced when the universe was only a few minutes old, all the other elements on the periodic table have been produced by stars. Many of these elements are released into interstellar space upon the deaths of stars, and incorporated into subsequent generations of stars and planets. Although we typically talk about evolution in the context of life on Earth, recent discoveries strongly suggest life may have evolved in many places in the universe.⁶

Accumulating Evidence
That evolution occurs is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, although the details of the processes that are most important to different aspects of cosmic and biological evolution will no doubt keep many generations of scientists busy refining old theories and formulating new ones. So what does a scientist mean by the word theory? In science, theory refers to an organizing principle that helps us make sense of a variety of phenomena, is consistent with what we know from other fields of science, and makes testable predictions. This is very different from the way "theory" is often equated to "speculation" in the common vernacular.

Our confidence in a scientific theory depends on the weight of supporting evidence, much as our interpretation of what happened at a crime scene does. Although scientific theories can be disproved, the really big theories of science (those that explain a wide variety of phenomena, and whose predictions have withstood rigorous testing over time) are more likely to require tweaking, rather than abandoning, as new evidence is accumulated.

The word chance also causes much consternation. In science and mathematics, chance or random generally refer to sets of events that have the same probability of occurrence. Even when used in this context, these words often convey a sense of meaninglessness; however, science is not equipped to deal with questions of meaning and purpose, a fact that is often lost on many people who use it to draw metaphysical inferences.

Affirming the Source
A scientific explanation doesn't preclude a religious interpretation. Unfortunately, many today seem to feel that either science has explained the origin of life or God did it, seeing the two positions as mutually exclusive. In this view, God is pushed out of the picture as our scientific knowledge grows. Pitting God against scientific explanations leads to a God of the Gaps, not the "Maker...of All That Is" whom we confess in the Nicene Creed.

The Maker of All That Is is the source of everything, including our scientific discoveries. Evolution refers to physical and biological processes of change over time; the doctrine of creation is an affirmation that God is the ultimate source of what science reveals to us, regardless of how the universe and its constituents came or come to be. This affirmation is not something we can "discover" scientifically. If we could, wouldn't this make our science bigger than God?

Herein lies a difficulty with Intelligent Design (ID) from scientific and theological points of view. The reason ID is not a scientific theory is that it inserts a "designer-as-mechanism" for gaps in our present knowledge of how evolution works. Although it is clear that most advocates of ID identify this designer of the universe with God, how would you distinguish between this "God" and an unimaginably advanced, but altogether material, entity or civilization that brought our universe and life into being? The Maker of All That Is must surely be bigger than this, and beyond the ability of our science to either discover or disprove.

Bridging Gaps
I conclude with a plea to church leaders to encourage and find appropriate mentors for youth in our congregations who are considering scientific vocations. I have met too many young people, and parents of young people, who are afraid that science will destroy their faith. Why should Lutherans, or any communities of faith, care about scientific discoveries? Aside from the urgent need for thoughtful and informed reflection on ethical issues that are raised by science, there is a pressing need for people who can bridge the communication gaps that often exist in discussions of religion and science.⁷

Perhaps most importantly, consider the many ways in which scientifically and technically trained people can live out Martin Luther's understanding of vocation as one's call to serve God and neighbor. After all, a member of one of our congregations could be the person who cures AIDS or develops new technologies to address world hunger or simply helps others better appreciate the wonders of creation.

Endnotes

1. William Stoeger, "Is Big Bang Cosmology in Conflict with Divine Creation?" in The Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vatican, ed. Guy Consolmagno, S.J. (Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2009).
2. Michael Zimmerman, "The Clergy Letter Project," www.butler.edu/clergyproject
3. The ELCA Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology Web site contains a wealth of resources for issues at the intersection of faith, science, and technology, including their bulletin, Covalence; www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Faith-Science-and-Technology.aspx
4. "When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?"
5. George Coyne, "The Evolution of Intelligent Life on Earth and Possibly Elsewhere: Reflections from a Religious Tradition," in Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life, and the Theological Implications, ed. Steven J. Dick (Templeton Foundation Press, 2000), 177.
6. I recommend NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Web site map.gsfc.nasa.gov for background on cosmology and NASA's astrobiology.nasa.gov for a good overview of astrobiology, which includes the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe.
7. I wrote a two-part article for Metanexus Institute's The Global Spiral in 2003, "Gaps in Scientific & Religious Education," which is archived at: www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/7891/Default.aspx and www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/7942/Default.aspx.

Grace Wolf-Chase is the research astronomer at the Adler Planetarium, Chicago, Illinois, and senior research associate at the University of Chicago. She attends St. Paul Lutheran Church, Wheaton, Illinois.