It is clear from Scripture that there was tension between faith and science contexts long before modern scientific theories and consequent conclusions became central in the pursuit of knowledge. Sophisticated ancients tended to believe in both special mankind and divine gods. The gods were somewhat humanized except for their miracle-working powers. Gods were formed like nature-persons rather than mankind striving to be like god-persons. God-related messages were formed from the idealism of leaders, but the concept of revelation informing mankind of what God is like emerged with the patriarchs of Israel, and given form on first written revelation in the work of Moses. Revelation replaced tradition for authority. God appears to have managed the changes well. (Acts 17:30) The growth of monotheism in a holy context became strong after Moses, but even in current times there are cultures holding to multiple gods.
We know fairly well the story since the ancient time period. We place Abraham about 4,000 years ago, King David about 3,000, and Jesus about 2,000. Our records are rather clear for our purposes in the two millennia since Jesus. The tensions between nature and super-nature alleged by mankind have appeared through the centuries taking this or that accent along the way. Accents have taken place by the influence of the engaging persons with their presuppositions, ignorance and discoveries pertaining and emerging along the way, perhaps rebellion against God and/or science, and the differentials of preferences, systems, mysteries, changes and formations that occur along the way. The issues of fixing truths, progressions, causes, and influences are difficult to come by, given both the facts of nature and the possibilities. The range of possibilities become a conflicting feature that leads to competition between advocates of this or that position in the spectrums of possibilities and probabilities. We are compelled to go along for the ride.
Inspired by the contradictions of scientists on some matters of nutrition a physician commented in answer to an article on science appearing in the Minneapolis newspaper that science took time to gain truth. The author implied his disappointment for the failures of some scientists – as in the hiding of evidence by a researcher when the evidence violated the researcher’s point-of-view. He called it fad science and offered several illustrations of the point. It was counterfeit science. There are many illustrations more dramatic in the distortions of some persons trusted to do science in the order of earth (natural) science. All goes well in the article, including caution for analysis in reference to global warming – until the simple declarative sentence that introduces a defense of the extended time required for scientific research to conclusion: True scientists are agnostic. The statement is untrue, it is not followed by evidence for so bald a proclamation, but is followed by defense of ethical science rather than fad science closing with an excellent paragraph: The only ethical media are those that, mindful of the same ethical precepts and of their role as public educators, refrain from promoting fads, premature conclusions and politically driven pseudoscience.
The writer should have written: True scientists are modestly skeptical. This is in holding that they reserve their imprimatur for final conclusion until the relevant evidence has been found and clarified to conclusion. It does not apply to skepticism about everything (a negative attitude), but a withholding of full approval until nature’s evidence substantiates conclusions. It becomes a motivational factor, not a general one. Earth scientists work with nature’s laws. Christians who are scientists (ethical scientists, to use the news item meaning for researchers), work with nature’s laws as far as those laws will take them, but presume that the author of those laws may be helpful in moving the process along. I know many of those scientists who would give similar answers to virtually all questions related to natural science. Scientists may be agnostics or atheists who believe that God, existent and non-existent, has no meaning to nature. To introduce God is to add another dimension to nature that does not deny nature. Each dimension can be perceived as separate from the other, but their truths complement each other. We rightly are disappointed that some scientists declaim against faith and some persons of faith against true nature scientists. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020