Error message

Notice: Undefined index: und in BeanBagLatestMedia->view() (line 172 of /home/relmag/public_html/sites/default/modules/bean_bag/plugins/bean/

Notice: Undefined variable: summary in BeanBagLatestMedia->view() (line 176 of /home/relmag/public_html/sites/default/modules/bean_bag/plugins/bean/

Faith vs. Reason

5 questions guiding the debate between religion and science.

Mention "evolution," "creation" or "intelligent design" in a group, and you are bound to get impassioned and varied responses. Arriving at a conclusion in the discussion of origins poses many theological and scientific questions. Many have thought the answers would lie in drawing lines: Nature vs. Scripture. Atheists vs. Christians. Creation vs. Evolution. But these divisions seem to have only made the debate muddier. Do faith and reason have to be mutually exclusive? Is it possible truth may lie in the space between?

We turned to Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma, professors in physics and astronomy and the authors of Origins, to answer some of Christians' biggest questions about science and theology:

Since the Bible tells us how God made the world, why do we need to listen to science?

God both created nature and inspired Scripture. Both are revelations from God that have something to teach us. Many Bible passages, such as Psalm 19, point to God’s revelation in the natural world. Because they are both revelations from God, nature and Scripture cannot conflict with each other. Conflict comes at the level of human interpretation of one or both revelations. If someone says, “The Bible trumps science,” they are really saying that their human interpretation of the Bible trumps a scientific interpretation of nature.

Also, the Galileo incident shows us that the Holy Spirit can sometimes use discoveries of science to prompt us to reexamine our interpretation of Scripture, leading us ultimately to a better understanding of Scripture. We should not neglect this means by which God can teach us new things.

Shouldn’t there be some sort of proof in nature that God created it?

It’s understandable that Christians would want to see proof of God in nature. This, in part, motivates some Christians to try to find scientific proof that the earth is young or that the theory of evolution is false.

In Romans 1:20 we read, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” One way to interpret this passage is to say that nature must provide proofs of God’s existence in the form of something that science cannot explain. Some proponents of Intelligent Design theory point to the genetic complexity of living organisms as one such proof. Other Christians say that it would be strange for God to bury such a proof of His existence in ways that only modern genetic science could detect.

Does Romans 1:20 actually teach that nature provides these sorts of proofs of God? Consider the context of verses 21-23:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.

These verses show that Paul was thinking about the pagan idolatry of his time. People steeped in this idolatry took one created thing (like the sun or the moon or the sea) and called it a god, or they took one aspect of creation (like fertility or death) and worshiped it. Instead of worshiping the Creator, ancient pagans took one part of the creation and looked to it for hope and meaning.

Ancient pagans and modern atheists alike have rejected the true God revealed in the regular functioning of natural laws and have turned a created thing into an idol. The answer to the ancient pagans was not to claim that the sun or the sea or fertility didn’t exist but to put these things in their proper place as aspects of God’s creation. Considering today’s context, Romans 1:20 teaches that the answer to modern atheists is not to deny the regularity of natural laws or to look for miraculous breaks in them but to put natural laws in their proper place as God’s creations. Of course, God certainly does use miracles at times to reveal Himself. But Romans 1:20 does not seem to teach that nature must contain miraculous proofs of God.

Would humans be less significant if God had created us through common ancestry with animals rather than through special miracles?

The idea of human evolution raises concerns about human significance. If we evolved from animals, are we nothing more than animals? Even if humans share a common ancestry with apes and other animals, our line of descent diverged from that of other animals at some point. Something different happened in our line of descent that did not happen to apes or other animals, something that makes us unique among life-forms on earth.

Our significance, however, lies not primarily in our biological uniqueness but in how God chooses to relate to us. In Genesis 1-2 God did more than create our bodies. He chose to reveal Himself to human beings, establishing a relationship with us beyond the relationship He has with animals. God blessed humanity and declared it very good. He gave humanity a commission He did not give to other animals: to name the creatures and to exercise stewardly dominion over God’s creation.

While God continues to care and provide for animals, throughout the Old Testament we see God doing dramatically more than that for human beings. God revealed Himself personally to His people through word and action, establishing covenants with them and answering their prayers. although humanity is small compared to the size of the universe, the vastness of the created world is not meant to belittle us but to proclaim the vastness of God’s promises (Genesis 15:5) and of His love (Psalm 104:11-12). Our significance is based on our standing in God’s eyes, not on our physical size or uniqueness.

Beyond all this God chose to become incarnate as a human being, to take on our very form. Jesus Christ humbled Himself and took on a human body. That act alone raises the significance of humanity. “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

With all this disagreement in the Church, what should I believe?

Regardless of what you decide about origins, keep these things in mind as you discuss these issues with others:

Fight against the worldviews of evolutionism and naturalism. Challenge claims that a scientific understanding of the Big Bang or evolution somehow disproves God. Whether or not the Big Bang and evolution happened, God is the sovereign Creator. Science can’t prove or disprove that.

Remember that all truth is God’s truth. Even when an idea is promoted by an atheist or by someone you dislike, it is not automatically false. Be willing to consider true arguments from any source, and know that God owns all truth.

Avoid adding to the Gospel. Keep the Gospel centered on the work of Christ and our need for grace, independent of views on origins. When non-Christians hear Christians make blanket scientific statements on origins, they get the impression that they’d have to change their scientific views in order to become a Christian.

How do I deal with disagreements about origins with my family and church members?

Disagreements among Christians are not always a bad thing. If an issue is complex, it’s unlikely that any one person has all the right answers. We can learn from each other. But in order to do that, we need to practice the virtues of humility and patience—as well as the habit of curiosity. Model those in ourselves and encourage them in others. We can be humble. Pride can make anyone too stubborn to listen to new ideas or too quick to discard an old belief. Keep listening seriously to all sides, admit when you don’t understand fully and change your mind if you feel the arguments warrant it. Having the “right” view on every issue is less important than that the Church lives and works and worships in unity.

Reprinted with permission from Origins (c) Faith Alive Christian Resources, January 2012. To order a copy of this resource please call 1-800-333-8300 or visit our website

Top Comments


dub commented…

exactly jeremy! if you believe in the 6 day creation story you must also
follow the laws set forth in leviticus commanding us to kill everyone
who commits adultery, blashphemes against god

and my favorite from deuteronomy - kill anyone with another religion



dub commented…

exactly jeremy! if you believe in the 6 day creation story you must also
follow the laws set forth in leviticus commanding us to kill everyone
who commits adultery, blashphemes against god

and my favorite from deuteronomy - kill anyone with another religion


Rhonda Hernandez commented…

Biblically, something doesnt always have to be literal to be true. We arent literal sheep, for example. When Jesus talked about the yeast of the Pharisees, he wasnt talking about literal yeast. The disciples made this mistake and thought he was mad that they forgot to bring literal bread with them, and he chastised them for it. (Mat. 16:5-10) When Jesus spoke of making a tree good or washing the inside of the cup, he wasnt talking about trees and cups. He was talking about people. There are too many other examples to list here.
I think this principle is especially applicable to time. To God, time has no relevance because Hes an infinite being. However, He must communicate events to finite beings in such a way that we can grasp them. Thus, time references in the Bible are sometimes literal and sometimes not. For example, I think that Jesus probably rose from the dead literally three days after his crucifixion. If a verse says it took X number of days to travel to such and such town, I think its literal.
But creating the Earth, sun, animals, people, and all the natural systems wouldnt necessarily have to occur in six 24-hour periods for the creation process to be true. I think its a mistake to assume that timeALWAYS has to be literal and that anyone who fails to believe this undermines God and truth. The same goes for Adam and whether he was literally one single person or a representation of a race of people. God and Jesus are tied to Adam either way, and thats whats important.


Mike commented…

There are parts of the Bible (Gen. 1) that are in a story format, allowing us to believe that it wasn't a literal event. However Gen. 2 and on are not in story format! The events in the garden, Adam, Eve, the snake, being kicked out of the garden, the angel guarding it, etc. These are written in historical format. If you choose to disagree, than you chose to ignore the facts. To believe in evolution as the story of creation you have to disagree with historical accounts of the garden, the tower of Babel, the flood, Romans 5:12, and much more.

There is no response against this, only the baggage that many people carry when they feel that they have to agree with evolution because of the "evidence" given by people with Phd's before their name.

Mark Wade


Mark Wade commented…

Well stated. Keeping an open mind and heart is more likely to win the trust of a soul than a dogmatic view. When asked, I just say whether in 6 days or 6 billion years, either way, God is able to do it.

Please log in or register to comment

Log In