Scientific Explanation and Its Challenge to Christianity (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Scientific Explanation and Its Challenge to Christianity
Introduction
Scientific advances have presented significant challenges to traditional Christian beliefs. As our understanding of the natural world grows through scientific investigation, questions arise about the role of God in explaining natural phenomena. This has led to important debates about how Christianity can respond to scientific explanations of the universe, life, and human origins.
This topic explores one of the most fundamental questions in modern theology: how can religious faith coexist with scientific understanding? The relationship between science and religion remains a subject of active debate among theologians, scientists, and philosophers.
The 'God of the gaps' argument
What is the 'God of the gaps'?
This argument suggests that as scientific understanding expands, there is progressively less need to invoke God as an explanation for things we don't understand. According to this view, God is pushed back into the ever-shrinking gaps in our scientific knowledge. The logical conclusion would be that when science can explain everything, there will be no place left for God.
Historical examples of the problem
Throughout history, phenomena once attributed to divine action are now understood through natural processes:
-
Weather events: Lightning, hail and thunder were once thought to express the anger of supernatural beings or gods. Today we understand these as meteorological phenomena governed by natural laws.
-
Planetary motion: People believed God moved the planets in their orbits. We now know that gravity governs planetary behaviour.
-
Species origins: God was believed to create animal species exactly as we see them today. Science has shown that all species evolved from simpler organisms through natural selection.
Why this creates problems for religious belief
When God is used simply to fill gaps in scientific knowledge, several issues emerge:
- God becomes merely an explanatory hypothesis rather than the transcendent being of classical theism
- If God is part of scientific explanation, God should be detectable by scientific methods
- Looking for God with scientific equipment (telescopes, microscopes) would be absurd, because such a being cannot be God in the traditional sense
- As science progresses, fewer gaps remain, potentially making belief in God scientifically untenable
The core problem: A god whose existence depends on what science cannot yet explain becomes progressively less necessary as scientific knowledge expands. This reduces the divine to merely filling in the blanks of human ignorance.
Flew's Parable of the Gardener
Antony Flew (1955) illustrated the problem of God of the gaps through a famous parable:
Two explorers discover a clearing in a jungle containing both flowers and weeds. One explorer believes there must be an invisible gardener tending the garden. Despite finding no evidence through various tests, the believer keeps qualifying what is meant by 'the gardener' - claiming the gardener is invisible, cannot be touched, has no smell, cannot be heard.
Flew's Parable: The Death of a Thousand Qualifications
Initial claim: "There is a gardener who tends this clearing."
After searching and finding no one: "The gardener is invisible."
After setting up electric fences: "The gardener is intangible and leaves no trace."
After using bloodhounds: "The gardener has no scent."
After acoustic monitoring: "The gardener makes no sound."
Flew's question: At what point does the claim "there is a gardener" become meaningless because it has been qualified so many times that nothing is left to distinguish it from "there is no gardener"?
Flew's point: Religious statements about God's existence die 'the death of a thousand qualifications'. Each time evidence fails to support God's existence, believers simply modify what they mean by God until nothing meaningful remains. This makes religious claims unscientific because they cannot be tested or falsified.
Key principle from science
Science depends on reason and evidence. Every scientific claim must be supported by evidence and must be falsifiable. If nothing is allowed to count against a claim, it cannot be considered scientifically valid.
Religious responses to the 'God of the gaps' argument
Christians have developed several responses to address this challenge:
1. God as 'Being-itself' (Paul Tillich)
Tillich argued that God should not be described as 'a being' among other beings, but as 'Being-itself'.
Application to God of the gaps:
- If God were merely a being among others, there would indeed be less room as science advances
- Classical theism teaches that God is both immanent (within the world) and transcendent (beyond the world)
- God is not just a thing within the world, but the ground of all existence - the reason the entire world exists
- Therefore, looking for a 'gap' for God is fundamentally mistaken
- Any god found in a gap could not be the God of classical theism
Tillich's approach shifts the conversation entirely. Instead of competing with scientific explanations, God is understood as the fundamental reality that makes all existence possible - including the natural laws that science studies.
2. God's action at the quantum level (John Polkinghorne)
Polkinghorne suggests that God does not intervene 'crudely' in the world but influences it at the quantum level.
Key features of this view:
- God's activity at the quantum level would be undetectable to humans
- Since everything in the large-scale universe is affected by quantum-level events, God remains active throughout the world
- This avoids the 'gap' problem because God's action is continuous and universal, not confined to specific unexplained phenomena
3. Ongoing creation (Maurice Wiles)
Wiles proposes that God has one continuous action: creation.
Main points:
- God's creative action is ongoing and includes everything
- God is active all the time, everywhere, within and beyond the universe
- This eliminates the need for separate divine interventions to fill gaps in scientific knowledge
All three of these theological responses share a common strategy: they reject the idea that God's activity should be thought of as occasional interventions in an otherwise natural world. Instead, they propose that divine action is continuous, universal, and operates at a level that doesn't compete with scientific explanations.
4. Theological critique of 'God of the gaps'
The key question: Is a god whose activity only appears in gaps between scientific explanations adequate for Christian theism?
The answer is no, because:
- This reduces God to a particular, limited being
- This represents bad theology
- Historically, treating something limited as though it were God was condemned as idolatry
- Christians benefit from recognising this problem as it prevents inadequate concepts of God
The 'God of the gaps' problem is actually helpful for Christian theology. It forces believers to develop more sophisticated and theologically sound conceptions of God that don't reduce the divine to merely an explanatory hypothesis for natural phenomena.
Nineteenth-century Christian responses to Darwin's theory of evolution
Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection has profoundly influenced Christian theology. However, the response was not simply a conflict between science and faith.
1. Church of England scientific representatives
Many initially ridiculed the theory, viewing it as degrading to humanity.
Main objections:
- Claimed evolution turned humans into beasts (though genetics now confirms humans are apes sharing a common ancestor with other primates)
- Challenged the literal interpretation of humans being created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27)
- Questioned whether there is a specifically 'human' image distinct from other animals
- Ignored evidence that other animals possess rationality and moral traits
2. Liberal Anglican acceptance
Most liberal Anglicans embraced evolution as God's method of creation.
Key features of this response:
- God initiated and guided the evolutionary process
- Evolution through natural selection was the mechanism God chose for creating species
- This remains the most common Christian response today
Modern application:
John Hick's Irenaean theodicy builds on this view, arguing that God produced humanity through evolution to maintain epistemic distance from God. This preserves human freedom to accept or reject God without overwhelming evidence of divine intervention.
Charles Kingsley's Theological Insight
The Victorian clergyman Charles Kingsley offered this perspective on evolution:
"We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than even that, that He can make all things make themselves."
Kingsley's point: A God who creates creatures capable of self-development through natural processes demonstrates greater wisdom and power than a God who needs to intervene constantly to produce new species.
3. Interventionist approach
Some Christians rejected natural selection in favour of direct divine intervention.
Main claim:
When God wants to create something new, he intervenes directly rather than working through natural processes. Today, those who hold this view are typically called creationists.
4. Biblical interpretation debate
Darwin's theory sparked wider discussion about how to interpret the Bible.
Important recognition:
Many Christians acknowledged that Genesis could not be taken as a literal scientific account of creation, even apart from Darwin's theory. This debate continues today between literal and metaphorical interpretations of scripture.
The debate over biblical interpretation predates Darwin. Even in the early church, theologians like St Augustine recognized that some biblical passages required non-literal interpretation to reconcile with observable reality.
5. Negative criticism and caricature
Some critics used ridicule rather than reasoned argument.
Famous Example: The Wilberforce-Huxley Debate (1860)
At the British Association meeting in Oxford, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce debated T.H. Huxley over Darwin's theory.
Wilberforce's taunt: He asked Huxley whether he claimed descent from an ape through his grandfather or grandmother.
Huxley's response: He stated that he would rather be related to an ape than to someone who used intellectual gifts to obscure truth and introduce ridicule into scientific debate.
This exchange became famous, though historical accounts vary. It illustrates how the debate over evolution often involved personal attacks and rhetorical flourishes rather than purely scientific discussion.
Modern perspective
Many twenty-first century Christians see no conflict between evolution and God's role as creator. Evolution describes a process governed by natural laws, but that process itself requires explanation. The existence of natural laws and the evolutionary process can be seen as evidence of divine design rather than as contradicting it.
Contemporary responses to the Big Bang theory
1. The beginning of the universe
The Big Bang theory appears to provide evidence that the universe had a beginning.
Christian interpretation:
- Genesis 1:3 states that God's first creative act was light
- Many Christians interpret this as a metaphor for the light-stream from the Big Bang
- Something with a beginning seems to require a cause
- According to physics, all events are caused
- If the universe was caused, there must have been a First Cause
- This connects to Aquinas' Third Way cosmological argument
The Big Bang theory initially faced resistance from some scientists precisely because it seemed to support religious claims about creation. The idea that the universe had a definite beginning was controversial in mid-20th century physics.
2. Fine-tuning argument
The precise values of cosmological constants suggest divine design to many Christians.
Key features:
- For intelligent life to develop, numerous physical constants must be exactly right (e.g., gravitational force, expansion rate of the universe, properties of RNA, DNA and proteins)
- The configuration must be correct to an impossibly narrow degree
- The probability of all constants being correct by chance alone is approximately against
- This suggests intentional fine-tuning by an intelligent designer (God)
The fine-tuning argument is particularly powerful because even slight variations in fundamental constants would make the universe uninhabitable. For example, if the strong nuclear force were just 2% different, carbon atoms could not form, making carbon-based life impossible.
3. Multiverse theory challenge
Multiverse theory proposes that many universes exist, potentially undermining the fine-tuning argument.
Main points:
- There may be or more universes, all beginning with a Big Bang
- If countless universes exist, statistically many would have the right constants purely by chance
- This weakens the fine-tuning argument for God's existence
Counter-argument:
- Even if multiverse theory is true, the existence of anything at all requires explanation
- Either what exists caused itself or was caused by something else
- If caused, God remains a likely candidate as the ultimate cause
Scientific skepticism:
Some physicists, including John Polkinghorne, reject multiverse theory because other universes are unobservable and therefore cannot be scientifically tested.
4. Catholic Church position
In 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with Catholic teaching on creation.
Key distinction:
- Atheists argue the Big Bang was uncaused or self-caused
- Christians argue it was caused by God's will
- Many scientists accept God as the cause of the Big Bang
Francis Collins on the Big Bang
Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and a Christian, states:
"The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that."
Collins represents many scientists who see no contradiction between accepting the Big Bang theory and believing in God as the ultimate cause.
5. Creationist views
Creationists reject scientific accounts of the universe's origins in favour of literal biblical interpretation.
General features:
- Appeal to their own interpretation of science based on biblical statements
- When science conflicts with the Bible, scientific findings are rejected
- The Bible is treated as the 'true' science
- Critics argue that creationist explanations lack scientific validity
It's crucial to distinguish between mainstream Christian acceptance of science (with God as ultimate cause) and creationist rejection of scientific findings. These represent fundamentally different approaches to the relationship between faith and science.
Types of creationism
Six-day (young earth) creationism
Main beliefs:
- The universe is between 5,700 and 10,000 years old
- The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years younger than scientific evidence suggests
- God created the earth in six literal 24-hour days, following Genesis exactly
- All humans descend from Adam and Eve
- There was no death before the Fall
- All species were created by God as we see them today
- No evolution of species has occurred
Prominent advocates:
- Henry Morris promoted 'creation science' through numerous books
- Ken Ham argues that: Noah's Flood occurred in 2348 BC; the ark carried enough species for biodiversity; dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans; scientific dating methods are wrong; only God's testimony (as the one who was present) counts as evidence
Evaluation:
There is no scientific evidence supporting young earth creationism. The Genesis narratives show clear dependence on earlier Babylonian creation stories, making literal interpretation problematic. This view relies on simple belief rather than evidence.
Young earth creationism requires rejecting vast amounts of scientific evidence from multiple fields: geology, astronomy, physics, biology, and paleontology. The age of the Earth (approximately 4.5 billion years) is supported by multiple independent dating methods that all converge on the same answer.
Progressive (old earth) creationism
Main beliefs:
- Accepts that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old
- Accepts that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old
- The Hebrew word 'yom' (day) means 'creative epoch' rather than 24-hour day
- God had bursts of creative activity followed by long periods of equilibrium
- Rejects Darwinian evolution in favour of unique creation of species
- New species appeared fully formed through God's intervention as 'intelligent designer'
- Some accept evolution for 'lower' beings but claim special creation for humans
- Pre-human hominid species lacked souls; Adam was the first to receive an eternal soul
- Noah's Flood was a local event, not worldwide
Evaluation:
Old earth creationism is no more scientific than young earth creationism. The evidence does not support unique creation of species. The Hebrew word 'yom' does not mean 'creative epoch'. There can be no evidence about whether pre-human hominids had souls. Claiming Noah's Flood was local contradicts the biblical text describing worldwide coverage. This represents another unsuccessful attempt to salvage literal meaning from Genesis.
Intelligent design
Main claims:
- Certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause
- These features cannot be explained by undirected processes like natural selection
- Generally does not identify the designer, though some proponents equate the designer with the Christian God
Michael Behe's argument:
- Many biological systems are 'irreducibly complex' at the molecular level
- Removing any part would make the system stop working
- This challenges Darwinian evolution because irreducible complexity cannot be produced by successive small modifications
Scientific response:
The scientific community virtually unanimously rejects intelligent design as pseudoscience because:
- Its scientific claims are minimal and generally rejected
- Its main ideas are not testable (whereas testability is the hallmark of scientific theory)
- Proponents ignore evidence showing how complex structures like the eye can develop gradually
- It represents an attempt to make creationism appear respectable without providing genuine scientific support
The key problem with intelligent design is that it fails the fundamental requirement of science: testability. A theory that cannot be tested or potentially falsified is not a scientific theory, regardless of how it's packaged or presented.
Important context for creationism debates
Historical perspective
The fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is a recent and minority phenomenon, though it has grown rapidly, especially in the USA.
Key points:
- Fundamentalists claim to defend traditional Christianity against scientific attack
- In reality, this does not reflect how Christianity has been understood throughout history
- Most religious thinkers have a more sophisticated understanding of biblical language
- As early as the fourth century, St Augustine wrote that parts of the Bible required interpretation because they did not fit with observable facts
St Augustine's approach to biblical interpretation: He argued that when scripture clearly contradicts what can be observed in nature, Christians should interpret the biblical passage metaphorically rather than literally. This demonstrates that non-literal interpretation of Genesis is not a modern concession to science but has ancient theological precedent.
Misrepresentation problem
Both sides often misrepresent each other:
- Many atheists assume all religious people are creationist fundamentalists
- This leads them to dismiss the intellectually rigorous views of mainstream Christians
- Christians should recognise the limitations of literal biblical interpretation in light of scientific evidence
The creationism debate often generates more heat than light because both sides tend to argue against caricatures rather than the strongest versions of opposing views. Understanding the diversity of Christian responses to science is essential for productive dialogue.
Key Points to Remember:
-
God of the gaps: As scientific knowledge expands, using God to explain unknown phenomena becomes increasingly problematic. God should not be reduced to an explanatory hypothesis for gaps in scientific knowledge.
-
Multiple Christian responses: Christianity has never had a single unified response to scientific challenges. Responses have ranged from rejection (creationism) to acceptance with integration (liberal views seeing evolution as God's method).
-
Creationism is not mainstream: Young earth creationism and intelligent design represent minority views within Christianity, despite their prominence in some regions. Most Christians accept scientific findings while maintaining belief in God as ultimate creator.
-
Fine-tuning and the Big Bang: Many Christians see the Big Bang theory and fine-tuning of cosmological constants as evidence for divine creation rather than as contradicting faith. The Catholic Church officially accepts the Big Bang theory.