Introduction: Did Columbus seek to prove that the world was round as he set out for the New World in 1492? The idea that there was a controversy over this is a hoax. Jeffrey Burton Russell explains the origin of this hoax in his fascinating book, Inventing the Flat Earth. The Flat-earth myth was propagated to seek to drive a wedge between ‘Science’ and the Bible.

Proposition: There is no conflict between the Bible properly understood and Science properly understood.

1. Modern Science Developed out of a Christian View of the World

Modern science did not develop in the advance cultures and civilizations of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and others. Though those civilizations were culturally and sometimes politically sophisticated and advanced, because they worshipped nature, true science was never able to develop. As Stanley Jaki puts it, science suffered "still births" in those civilizations. It was only in an environment, influenced by Christianity, that science was able to begin and flourish.

Why did Science spring from a Christian worldview? Today we of course see that few scientists are professed believers, there are some but they are in the minority. Even with the attacks on Christianity by many of the current champions of science, we can say with confidence that only because of a biblical view of the world was science able to flourish. Why is that the case?

If we think about, the answer is no surprise. The Bible, though not a science textbook, presents the only true view of the world and creation. The physical creation is not god. The physical world is not eternal - there was a starting point in time. God world runs in a stable and coherent manner. The physical world can be understood to a great degree because the world is real and not just our imagination. Another encouragement coming especially from the Protestant Reformation was that God wanted His people to use their talents not only in ‘religious’ service but in all areas of life. It was man’s duty to learn so that there could be benefit for others.[1] These fundamental and basic starting points are what allowed science to develop. In a worldview or religion that worships the physical world, there is no chance for true science to develop and flourish.

As an aside, there is no need for Christians to try to justify this argument by making every scientist of the past into a Christian. Isaac Newton was probably not an orthodox Christian. We don't need to try to make all the scientists into Christians. Newton who spent a vast amount of time trying to convert lead into gold - he wrote over a million words on the subject - was still operating from a Christian worldview. His contributions to science came because of the influence of Christianity. This is a major statement, but it has been proven true historically, and we are not surprised of its truth because of our view of God and creation.

Example of Galileo – The issue was not the Bible v. Science but had more to do with Galileo’s rejection of the philosophy of Aristotle. The Roman Catholic Church based many of its ideas on Aristotle.[2]

2. Science Hardly Has a Track Record for Being Always Right

There are different theories for how science develops and progresses. Some would see a slow natural progression where science is constantly learning new truth after another. But this would be much too simplistic. Most science education does not focus enough on the history of science and the failures of scientific theories and ideas. We shouldn’t have to feel like just because many scientists believe in something, then it must be true.

Not too many years ago, it was very respectable to believe that some races of people were superior and that it was to man’s advantage to keep down the population of inferior races. This was part of the ‘science’ of Eugenics. Major universities studied ways to achieve the goal of developing an advanced race. Those deemed inferior were forbidden to marry, sterilized, and treated in other very inhumane ways. And this was all in the name of science and the supposed human good.

3. We must distinguish between science based on actual observation and careful measurements where actual theories can be tested and that science which is focused on theories that cannot really be tested. In this sense, creation is not ‘scientific’ but neither is evolutionary science.

[1] Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 23, 34-35