The Integration of Faith and Science

121

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/1 (Spring 2003): 121–137.

Leonard Brand

Loma Linda University

Faith and scienceÑcan they live in the same house? There are many who

say that scholars, especially scientists, must leave all religious influences out of

their scholarly pursuits because to do otherwise would compromise the search

for truth. Even many Christians are nervous about attempts to find a harmony

between Scripture and science. Is this concern justified? This depends partly on

how we understand the nature of inspiration and partly on our understanding of

the scientific data.

I am well aware of the diversity of views on the nature of inspiration and of

the variation in degree of confidence in the history of life given in Genesis. Even

in some seemingly conservative Christian circles there seems to be the convic-

tion that we can only be worthy scholars if we move away from acceptance of

Bible history as describing literal events, such as the six-day creation and per-

haps even a literal second coming. However, the approach I will take in this

paper is based on an understanding of inspiration well summarized by E. G.

White: ÒThe language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious

meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employedÓ (GC 599). ÒIt [the Bible] was

designed for the common people, and the interpretation given by the common

people, when aided by the Holy Spirit, accords best with the truth as it is in Je-

sus (5T 331). ÒA sense of the power and wisdom of God, and of our inability to

comprehend His greatness, should inspire us with humility, and we should open

His word, as we would enter His presence, with holy awe. When we come to the

Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and

intellect must bow before the great I AMÓ (SC 110).

This approach accepts the events described in the Bible as actual historical

happenings, including creation in seven literal days, a global flood, JesusÕ mira-

cles, and GodÕs literal communication of ideas and facts to at least some Bible

writers, such as Moses, Daniel, Paul, and John (not through verbal inspiration,

but communication of thoughts). This approach must be used with wisdom,

prayer, and careful thought, or it can lead to such simplistic ideas as the common

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

122

fundamentalist belief in verbal inspiration of Scripture (which some SDAs have

also tried to apply to E. G. White).

I have both spiritual reasons (which I will not discuss here) and scholarly

reasons for taking this position, arguing that biblical insights can open our eyes

to new insights in science (Brand 1997). The God of the Bible is the greatest

scholar of all time, and Scripture deals in the highest levels of scholarship, not

just in comforting inspirational themes. (When God arranged to have Genesis

written, He knew vastly more about radiometric dating than we will ever know.)

The application of this concept can be valuable not only in biology but even

in what may seem like the most unlikely disciplinesÑpaleontology and geology.

My own area of training and research is in evolutionary biology and paleontol-

ogy, and I will discuss the integration of faith and science mainly in these fields.

I will not attempt in this paper to defend my conservative view of biblical inter-

pretation, but will only discuss the application of that concept in integrating faith

and scholarship. Scholarly thinking based on confidence in a high view of

scripture does not need to be inferior to more liberal scholarship, and in fact can

give us advantages. We benefit from insights from the Creator of the uni-

verseÑinsights that others ignore.

Challenges to Be Overcome

The attempt to integrate faith and scholarship introduces a tension. Can re-

ligion interject a bias into our scholarly search for truth? The answer, clearly, is

yes: it can introduce a bias. Some conservative Christians believe dinosaurs

never existed, even though numerous dinosaur skeletons have been found, and

they think this opinion is based on the Bible. One suggested solution is to leave

the Bible out of our scholarly pursuits, so religious biases will not trouble us and

we can be more objective. An episode in the history of geology illustrates the

shallowness of that solution.

The pioneering geologist Charles Lyell wrote a book (Lyell 1830-1833) that

defined the field of geology for over a hundred years. Lyell rejected all the

catastrophist geological interpretations common in his day and replaced them

with the theory that all geological processes occurred very slowly and gradually

over eons of time (gradualism). Historical analysis of LyellÕs work has con-

cluded that the catastrophists were the more unbiased scientists, while Lyell

imposed a culturally derived theory upon the data (Gould 1984). Gould and oth-

ers are not agreeing with the biblical views of some of the early geologists, but

they have concluded that LyellÕs colleagues were more careful observers than

Lyell, and their catastrophist views were realistic interpretations of the data.

LyellÕs strictly gradualistic theory was very bad for geology, because it

closed geologistsÕ minds to any interpretations that suggested rapid, catastrophic

geologic processes (Gould 1965; Valentine 1966). The authors just cited still

prefer to explain geology in a Òmillions of yearsÓ scenario, but they recognize

the evidence that many sedimentary deposits are catastrophic in nature. Now

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

123

that LyellÕs serious bias has been recognized and at least partially abandoned,

the minds of geologists have been opened to recognize more evidence for cata-

strophic processes. That evidence was there in the rocks before, but was not rec-

ognized because of LyellÕs bias. If the prevailing paradigm says it isnÕt true, it

will probably not be noticed.

This episode reveals that bias is not a religious problem. ItÕs a problem that

we all have to contend with, no matter what philosophy we adopt. Biases such as

these can persist because of the inadequacy of our information on complex top-

ics, and a continued search for new evidence can help to reveal them, if we have

the right state of mind to notice them. The idea that religion introduces biases,

but scholarship that leaves religion aside is objective, is naive (Plantinga 1997).

It is true that we often read our pet ideas into the Bible, between the lines, and

misunderstand how to relate Scripture to nature. But those who do not take

Scripture seriously have their own problems with other biases, and these are no

less significant than the biases that can result from religion.

Testing a theory is easier in some fields than in others. Questions about

whether faith and science can productively interact may seem almost irrelevant

to those in biochemistry or physiology or engineering, because there is no con-

flict between their faith and their science. Another consideration is that those

disciplines work with currently active biological, chemical, and physical proc-

esses, while paleontology, geology, and parts of evolutionary biology study

historical events which we cannot observe, but must try to reconstruct from the

meager evidence they have left behind. These disciplines, as practiced by most

professionals, are heavily dependent on certain assumptionsÑespecially the

worldview of millions of years of evolutionary history without any Divine inter-

vention. This naturalistic worldview can introduce extremely pervasive biases

into scientific inquiry.

Nevertheless, the nervousness of Christian thought leaders about the idea of

seeking a relationship between science and religion cannot be lightly brushed

aside. It could arise for several reasons, and any method for integrating faith and

science must have an answer for these (Brand 2000a & b). In addition to the

possibility of bias addressed above, the issues most relevant here are 1) the pos-

sibility that if we try to integrate our science and our faith, science may disprove

our belief system, and 2) religious explanations (ÒGod did itÓ) may seem to an-

swer all questions and thus discourage scientific investigation.

An Approach to Relating Faith and Science that DoesnÕt Work

One response to this challenge that some find attractive is to simply keep

science and faith separate (e.g., Gould 1999). This method can work fine in

many disciplines that do not deal with the history of life or of the earth, because

Scripture may not speak to the issues those disciplines address. As I have ob-

served the results of this approach as used by people I know (and by Stephen

Gould), it is evident to me that when they begin to study earth history, where the

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

124

Bible and science sometimes say opposite things, they in reality switch to a dif-

ferent approach. They then either take Scripture as more reliable than historical

science, or they go the other direction and decide that science gives us facts, and

Scripture only provides the spiritual meaning of those facts. This latter approach

leaves me with one nagging question. If God canÕt keep His facts straight, or at

least doesnÕt know how or doesnÕt bother to communicate them to us, why

should I care what He has to say about spiritual meanings? Why should I trust

what He has to say? This can be expressed as a strictly scholarly question: if a

book claims to speak for some individual, and much of what the book says is

mythical or just not true, is there reason to believe the rest of the book or to trust

the person behind the book? There must be a better answer to the problem of

relating faith and science.

Perhaps then we should just solve the problem by being sure to keep an

open mind as we pursue our scholarly study. That is a worthy goal, but as our

discussion of LyellÕs theory suggests, we often donÕt have nearly enough facts to

know what a truly open mind would be thinking. This is truer in geology, pale-

ontology, and evolutionary science than is commonly recognized.

A Productive Approach to Relating Faith and Science

Another solution is to know God as a personal friend, learn to trust His

Word, and use it to assist us in our scholarly thinking. Meanwhile, if we interact

with other scholars with various views, that interaction can help us avoid sim-

plistic attempts to relate Scripture to the natural world. There are many crea-

tionists who write books or pamphlets on evolution or geology that are clearly

an embarrassment even to a conservative Christian who is informed on these

subjects. It may be that the problem isnÕt their use of biblical concepts, but a

lack of scientific knowledge, combined with a lack of peer review of their ideas.

This, I believe, leads us to an approach that is tried and proven (Brand 1997,

ch. 5-6), using the following steps: 1) Allow new scientific findings to challenge

our interpretation of Scripture, and vice versa (Fig. 1); 2) actively search for and

utilize insights from Scripture pertinent to our discipline, allowing these to help

us devise hypotheses that can be tested with the methods of science, especially

in areas of seeming conflict between science and Scripture (Moreland 1994, ch.

1); 3) be aware of the work and thinking of those who have a different world

view; 4) whenever feasible, submit our work for publication and peer review;

and 5) become friends with those in a different world view, and perhaps even do

collaborative work with them. This requires the confidence and independence of

thought to not accept whatever our collaborators think, while maintaining a con-

structive dialogue that can reduce the likelihood of superficial thinking.

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

125

Figure 1. A working relationship between science and religion. The methods of science are used in

science, but not to test religious ideas, and vice versa. The interface is a thought process where each

domain is allowed to challenge the other and cause us to think more carefully about both science and

religion. This process will encourage, not discourage, continuing research. (from Brand 1997)

Scientific Challenges to Scripture and Scriptural Challenges to Science

Progress in the integration of faith and science often begins with a new sci-

entific finding that challenges our understanding of Scripture. At that point we

may be tempted to bar the doors against all new ideas and defend our personal

beliefs against all challenges. A more constructive answer to the challenge (Fig.

1) is to use the methods of science to pursue the challenging area (science do-

main), while using the methods in the religion domain to dig deeper in Scripture

to determine if it actually says what we thought it says. As we do this, it may

become evident that Scripture surely does disagree with accepted scientific in-

terpretations, thus challenging us to think of new hypotheses that can explain the

scientific data. This method differs from GouldÕs method (Gould 1999), because

it maintains a continuous mental interaction between the religion and science

domains, as they each challenge the other to more careful thought. Another dif-

ference from Gould is that in my approach Scripture contributes not just pleasant

pastoral counsel, but also truths about events of earth history.

This approach does not discourage research, but can stimulate more careful

research in both science and religion. In this process Scripture can suggest hy-

potheses to be tested by the methods of science. For example, the biblical

framework predicts that the fossil-rich portion of the geological record formed

in a much shorter time frame than most geologists think. This can be translated

into specific testable scientific hypotheses about individual rock formations.

This may sound good on paper, but do we have evidence that it can truly

work? In the examples below, I will show that the process does work, has

stimulated productive scientific research, and has also resulted in responsible

reevaluation of some interpretations of Scripture. One common belief held by

When conflicts arise:

Challenges our interpretation

of Scripture. Makes us study

more carefully.

When conflicts arise:

Challenges our interpretation

of scientific data. Makes us

think more deeply and collect

more data. Suggests hypotheses

of which we might not otherwise

have thought.

BibleScience

Hypothesis

testing

Hypothesis

development

Science

Domain

Development of

Religious concepts

Testing of

religious concepts

Observations

Experiments

Analysis, interpretation

Attempt to determine what

the Bible really says

Compare Scripture with

Scripture

Linguistic analysis

Interface

Religion

Domain

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

126

many conservative Christians about geological history is now revealed as a

strictly human assumption that is not present in Scripture. We will return to this

point later.

Biblical Anchor Points

Application of the above described integration process leads me to the fol-

lowing list of earth history concepts (biblical anchor points) that I believe are

supported by Scripture:

1. In a literal week of six consecutive, twenty-four hour days, God prepared

the earthÕs surface and created living things (Genesis 1, 2).

2. At the end of that creation week, a complete ecosystem was in place, in-

cluding invertebrates (creeping things), birds, aquatic animals, mammals (cat-

tle), and plants (Genesis 1). Not much detail is given as to exactly what animals

and plants were present, but the list includes some that do not appear until fairly

late in the fossil record, like fruit trees (angiosperms) and humans. Thus the list

of organisms present at creation week includes both invertebrates and also

Òhigher formsÓ of life. This indicates that the major life forms were created and

did not result from evolution.

3. At some time since the creation there was a catastrophic flood of global

proportions.

4. The creation week occurred only a few thousand years ago. There are un-

certainties about the completeness of genealogical lists and differences between

ancient biblical manuscripts, but although we donÕt know the exact time span, I

conclude that Scripture clearly portrays a short history of life on this earth,

measured in thousands, not millions of years. It is evident that many Bible writ-

ers accepted the creation, the flood, and the early biblical record of human his-

tory as accurate. Many biblical passages make no sense whatever if the fossil

record represents millions of years of time.

5. Jesus demonstrated in His miracles that God is very capable of instanta-

neously creating animal or plant tissue, or in restarting the biochemical proc-

esses in tissue that is no longer living. This is demonstrated in the turning of

water to wine (John 2:1-10), creating food to feed several thousand people from

a handful of fish and bread (Mark 6:30-44, 8:1-10), raising someone who had

been dead for several days (John 11:38-44), restoring sight to blind eyes (John

9:1-11), restoring tissue destroyed by leprosy (Luke 17:11-17), and restoring a

withered hand (Mark 3:1-6). This shows that God is very capable of creating life

as described in Genesis.

6. After sin the biological world began to change (Genesis 3:14-19). Thorns

and thistles began to appear, and apparently some large mammals became car-

nivorous that were not carnivorous before (Isaiah 11:6-9).

From study of E. G. WhiteÕs writings on this topic (1864, 1890), I add the

following items to the list:

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

127

7. A strong reaffirmation of the literal creation week, a few thousand years

ago.

8. In connection with the flood, mountains disappeared, new mountains ap-

peared, coal and oil were formed, and in fact the entire crust of the earth was

changed.

Examples of Research Resulting from Biblical Insights

The following are a few examplesÑand more could be givenÑof success-

ful scientific research that used insights from Scripture to suggest new questions

to be asked or hypotheses to be tested.

1. Grand Canyon Geology. Dr. Arthur Chadwick of Southwestern Ad-

ventist University has been studying the Tapeats Sandstone near the bottom of

the Grand Canyon. I will not attempt to explain the details of his research in this

brief paper, but he and his collaborators found a geological deposit that clearly

changes the interpretation of the Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon area

(Kennedy et al. 1997). Others have interpreted the Tapeats Sandstone as an ac-

cumulation of sand in shallow water along an ocean shore, with the water level

and sand deposit gradually rising along an existing cliff face over eons of time.

The findings of Chadwick and Kennedy require accumulation of the sand in

deep water, by very different processes from those that would occur in shallow

water (these deep water processes possibly were also much more rapid, but that

is another issue). They presented their data and conclusions to a professional

meeting of geologists, including some who had done much of the previous re-

search on that formation, and these geologists concluded that Chadwick and

KennedyÕs conclusions were correct. One geologist asked Dr. Chadwick after-

wards why he had seen these things that other geologists have missed? The an-

swer is that our worldview prompts us to ask questions that others are not ask-

ing, to question conclusions that others take for granted, and it opens our eyes to

see things that are likely to be overlooked by a geologist working within a con-

ventional naturalistic scientific theory. The questions a scholar asks have a

strong controlling influence on what features of rocks or fossils will catch their

attention, for example, and what data they will collect.

Careful scientists who allow Bible history to inform their science will not

use a different scientific method from the method used by other scientists. When

we are at a rock outcrop we all use the same scientific method, the types of data

potentially available to us are the same, and we use the same scientific instru-

ments and logical processes to analyze data. The differences are in 1) the ques-

tions we tend to ask, 2) the range of hypotheses we are willing to consider, and

3) which of the potential types of data are likely to catch our attention.

If we start from what we believe to be a more correct beginning point (like

starting with divinely revealed history), that starting point does not guarantee

that the hypotheses we develop will be correct, since God has not given us that

much detail. It just initiates a search in a particular direction, and we may need

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

128

to make a number of course corrections (based on scientific data) before we find

the right answer. The advantage in beginning from a more correct starting point

is that it can greatly speed up the process by eliminating gross errors in our in-

terpretations. A God who has witnessed all of earth history can give us insights

about history that would be difficult or impossible for us to discover by science

alone, at least in a time frame consistent with the human life span. My point is

that if we trust Divine insights, they can help us improve our progress in some

areas of science by opening our eyes to things we would otherwise be much less

likely to see.

2. Fossil Whales of the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru. A

few years ago I first visited the Pisco Formation in Peru, a diatomite deposit

containing numerous well preserved fossilized whales. Microscopic diatoms are

organisms that float near the surface of lakes and oceans. Upon death their silica

skeletons sink, and in modern oceans they form accumulations of diatomite a

few centimeters thick in a thousand years. It is assumed that ancient (fossil) di-

atomite deposits formed at the same slow rateÑa few centimeters per thousand

years.

There are publications in scientific research journals on the geology of the

Pisco Formation and on the systematics and evolution of the whales. But appar-

ently no one has previously asked how it can be that sediment accumulating at

the slow rate of a few centimeters per thousand years can contain complete,

well-preserved whales, which would seem to require rapid burial for their pres-

ervation. This was another case in which our worldview opened our eyes to see

things that others have not noticed. This was an opportunity to test whether my

working hypothesis (derived initially from Scripture) of a shortened geological

time scale could be applied to the Pisco Formation. Such slow diatom accumu-

lation does not seem compatible with well-preserved whales, and further re-

search could evaluate this. Our research there during three summers, with

graduate student Raul Esperante and other geologists and paleontologists, has

indicated that the whale carcasses were not in any type of special situation that

could favor preservation of animals over extended time periods before burial.

Our evidence points to rapid burial, probably within a few weeks or months for

any given whale, or a few years at an extreme maximum, and suggests some

processes that can help to explain how ancient diatomites may have accumulated

much more rapidly than is usually assumed. Other scientists are studying decay

and disarticulation of modern whale carcasses on the ocean floor, and their data

provide information on the timing of decay and disarticulation of modern

whales.

In this research we presented papers at the annual meetings of the Geologi-

cal Society of America (Esperante-Caamano et al. 1999, 2000), interacting with

other scientists who deal with these phenomena, and have published one article

(Esperante-Caamano et al. 2002), and more manuscripts are in preparation. The

best scientists in the field have opportunity to evaluate our work and will be

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

129

eager to point out our mistakes. That is a powerful incentive to keep us from

being careless. Of course we do not discuss biblical insights at the geology

meetings or in our publications, as that would not be appropriate. We discuss

scientific work only, and if the data support our conclusions, our work will stand

up to the criticisms of scientific reviewers.

In this research and other similar research projects, I have spent time in the

field with, and even collaborated with, other paleontologists and geologists who

have a non-creationist worldview. I find there is value in working with someone

from a different point of view. I discover things they would probably never even

consider, and they notice things I would likely overlook. This can help each of

us to not be misled by our inherent biases. The LLU researchers found data that

raise serious questions about applying the radiometric time scale to these geo-

logic formations, and these questions exist in other formations as wellÑthere

are geological reasons to think there is something wrong with the radiometric

time scale. But on the other hand, our findings indicate that the sediment in these

formations apparently could not have accumulated in a few weeks or months,

and thus it could not have formed in a one-year global floodÑit was deposited

rapidly, but the sedimentary data are consistent with a time frame of perhaps

tens to hundreds of years, not a few weeks or months. We will come back to this

point later.

3. Fossil Vertebrate Trackways in the Permian Coconino Sandstone,

Northern Arizona. The Coconino Sandstone is generally interpreted as a de-

posit of wind-blown desert sand, and its only fossils, vertebrate trackways, have

been considered supporting evidence of this interpretation. Because I wondered

how this desert interpretation could fit into a biblical earth history model, and

because of superficialities in previous research on the fossil trackways, I have

been doing research on these tracks for some years (Brand 1979, 1983, 1992,

1996; Brand and Tang 1991). At present it is not clear what the ultimate conclu-

sion from this research will be. The trackways have features that seem virtually

impossible to explain unless they were made with the animals completely un-

derwater, while the sedimentary evidence, as interpreted by sedimentologists,

seems to point to wind-blown sand. This seeming contradiction indicates there

are some unknown pieces of the puzzle that remain to be discovered. When

these pieces are found they may provide new insights into processes of sand

deposition or new insights into how trackways are made under unique condi-

tions. Whatever the outcome will be, our understanding of the Coconino Sand-

stone and its fossil tracks will be on a stronger footing (no pun intended) be-

cause of my questioning of the accepted interpretation of these tracks. We will

then know what course corrections are needed in sedimentological interpreta-

tions of cross-bedded sand deposits or in our understanding of some extra-

biblical details of earth history.

4. Biological Origins and Intelligent Design. The application of natural-

ism to the origin of life and of the diversity of organisms is being challenged by

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

130

scholars in the Intelligent Design movement, led by Phillip Johnson and others

(Behe 1996; Dembski 1998, 1999, 2002; Moreland 1989, 1994; Johnson 1991,

1995, 1997). There is much opportunity for significant scholarly work in this

area. Darwinian theory is very successful in explaining biological change in

species or subspecies of organisms, but quite unsuccessful in accounting for the

origin of larger novelties like the origin of life or new classes or phyla of plants

or animals. It is time for a different approach to have a hearing. If science is go-

ing to be an openminded search for truth, it cannot arbitrarily exclude some hy-

potheses. Advances in molecular biology make it increasingly difficult to justify

excluding the hypothesis that life requires an intelligent inventorÑthat idea at

least must be open for candid discussion. Phillip Johnson is probably right in his

conviction that our primary task is to get the philosophy of naturalism onto the

table for open discussion. If naturalism can be openly discussed and challenged,

its weaknesses and arbitrariness will become evident.

Behe (1996) has been applying the hypothesis of intelligent design in his

study of molecular biology. He finds biomolecular structures (biomolecular ma-

chines) that seem to require construction and assembly of several complex parts

before they can work at all (irreducible complexity), just like a mousetrap must

have all its parts before it will work. He presents this as evidence requiring a

designer, since natural selection will only work in evolving complex structures if

it can gradually ÒinventÓ one part at a time. Others attempt to challenge BeheÕs

conclusions, but his work is like other scientific research programsÑhis initial

attempt is unlikely to once and for all disprove the opposing view. We can now

all watch the interaction between different viewpoints as they pursue research

attempting to support or disprove the implications of biomolecular complexity

for intelligent design.

Implications for Science and for Faith

These are just a few examples of what must certainly be a wide field of op-

portunities for constructive integration of religious insights and scholarly work.

Wolfe (2000) concluded an article on intellectual contributions by Christians by

stating, ÒThere are not, and in all likelihood there never will be, similar devel-

opments (a serious intellectual contribution by conservative Christians) in the

natural sciences.Ó If that prediction can be proved wrong, science as well as re-

ligion will benefit.

How scientists get their ideas cannot be analyzed objectively and is irrele-

vant to the scientific process (Cromer 1993, 148; Popper 1959, 31, 32). No

matter where their ideas come from (even from the Bible), those ideas and hy-

potheses are valid science if they can be tested against data. Science, of course,

has nothing to contribute to evaluating much of the content of Scripture.

Whether Jesus actually changed water to wine or bodily raised Lazarus from the

dead is beyond scientific scrutiny. Many scholars will claim it is very unscien-

tific to believe such things, but that conclusion is based solely on untested and

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

131

untestable philosophical assumptions (biases), and in reality has nothing to do

with science. What experiment would you do to test those biblical miracles?

Unless science can conduct such a test, science cannot properly claim to have

anything to say about such matters.

When a biblical worldview can suggest testable hypotheses, those are valid

contributions to science. This claim is supported by the examples from geology

and paleontology given above and from personal experience or the work of close

friends. Other examples could be given. It is also interesting to see certain gen-

eral trends in the geological sciences and in biology that are going in the direc-

tion predicted by a conservative reading of Scripture. Examples would be the

trend of increasing recognition of catastrophic processes in geology and the

growing number of voices who doubt that Darwinian processes can produce life

from non-living material or can produce major new life forms. The latter exam-

ple still involves a minority of individuals (a well-entrenched theory like abio-

genesis or Darwinian macroevolution dies hard), but growing knowledge of the

intricacies of molecular mechanisms in living cells makes belief in a naturalistic

origin of life forms increasingly difficult, and the usual lack of fossil intermedi-

ates between phyla and classes of organisms compounds the difficulty.

A point made earlier needs to be emphasized: the research cited above does

not use a different scientific process from that used by other scientists. We have

access to the same types of data, we use the same observation techniques and

laboratory instruments for analyzing rock or fossil samples. Everyone uses X-

ray diffraction (XRD) to identify minerals and scanning electron microscopy or

polarized light microscopy for close examination of rocks and small fossils. We

use the same type of logic in deriving conclusions from data.

So what is different? The differences are in 1) the questions that we tend to

ask, 2) the types of hypotheses we are willing to consider, and 3) which of the

potential types of data are likely to catch our attention. Biblical insights indicate

there are important scientific discoveries to be made if we ask questions about,

for example, how much time it really took to form various rock formations with

their fossil deposits, instead of assuming the standard geological time scale is

correct.

The research examples described above all resulted in new scientific in-

sights because we allowed biblical insights to open our minds to see things that

had previously not been noticed. This gives us reason to believe there are many

more such discoveries awaiting the biology or earth science researcher who uses

this approach. This also gives us reason to be skeptical about judging the book

of Genesis on the basis of current scientific interpretations.

The Other Side of the Coin

Earlier I stated that being aware of the thinking of those who disagree with

us and collaborating with such persons can help us notice things that we would

otherwise be likely to overlook in religion as well as in science. Geological

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

132

study, as in the examples cited above, has made some of us aware of conflicts on

both ends of the spectrum of geological interpretations. There are many situa-

tions in which it is difficult to reconcile the actual data in the rocks and fossils

with millions of years of geological time. That theory fits well in a general way,

but problems arise when we give careful attention to detail. The devil is in the

details!

On the other hand it is equally difficult to see how the details of many de-

posits can be reconciled with the theory that most of the geological record was

produced in a one-year flood (the devil is still in the details). This has led to our

recognition that most theories of Òflood geologyÓ over the last hundred years,

attempting to explain how the flood formed the rocks and fossils, have made one

big assumption that is not found in the Bible (or in E. G. White). That is the as-

sumption that most of the geological record was produced in the one-year Gene-

sis flood (perhaps with some forming after the flood, as catastrophic conditions

gradually settled down to the more stable conditions of today), with no geologi-

cal processes forming rocks and fossils between creation and the flood. Genesis

tells us that there was a creation week and a flood that heavily impacted life on

earth, but it does not tell us what parts of the geological record formed during

that event (and I am speaking only of the fossil-rich part of the geological re-

cordÑthe origin of the earth and of the universe is a different question alto-

gether). All of our explanations of such things are extra-biblical theories.

Perhaps the Phanerozoic portion of the geological record began forming in

ocean basins or lowland areas after sin, and continued before, during, and after

the flood. If the geological record, from Cambrian to the present, took several

thousand years to form instead of much of it forming in one year, that is a very

different type of geological challengeÑorders of magnitude different, from try-

ing to put it all in one year. The rocks and fossils seem to indicate a genuine

series of consecutive events that took some time, but there is also evidence of

much catastrophe and rapid sedimentary processes. The choice is not only be-

tween 1) the geological record forming in one year, or 2) 540 million years for

the geological column with its fossil record of complex organisms. There are

other options that need to be considered, and I predict that allowing Scripture as

well as science to open our eyes to things that others overlook will continue to

lead to productive science as we search for answers to the big questions about

origins. This type of interaction between science and Scripture can yield insights

in other fields as well.

Living with Unanswered Questions

As we pursue research aimed at answering the give and take of challenges

between science and religion we will continue to live with many unanswered

questions (and so do those who do not accept Scripture, if they honestly face the

conflicts between data and theory). It is not realistic to think science will prove

or disprove either creation or the flood. Christians have trusted too much in sci-

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

133

ence to prove these events from the distant past; we did not observe them, and

science can investigate hypotheses about such ancient historical events, but not

provide proof. God has also given us evidence on which to base faith, but not

proof. If we had proof we would probably be much too arrogant anyway!

Our faith cannot be based on science, but must be based on knowing Jesus

and learning to trust Him, even when we have questions without answers. He

knows much more than we do about earth history, and if we know Him and trust

His Word we can benefit from the insights in Scripture. All will at some point

decide (consciously or unconsciously) which worldview they will accept and

live by. We canÕt be continuously evaluating all beliefs, but if we maintain a

constructive interaction between science and faith (Fig. 1), we can test whether

our faith is based on Scripture or on our personal biases.

While we depend on our faith, it will not be helpful to ignore science. Even

though we experience conflict between our interpretations of Scripture and our

interpretations of science, the two sources will not ultimately contradict each

other. Willingness to learn from science, understanding scienceÕs limits (Ratzsch

2000), and a commitment to the highest quality of science are important com-

plements to our faith. Elton Trueblood (1958, 170) set an inspiring objective

before us when he stated that Òthe religious scientist has more reason to be care-

ful of his evidence than has the nonreligious scientist, because he is handling

what is intrinsically sacred. Shoddiness, for him, is something to spurn because

it is a form of blasphemy.Ó

One who accepts the Bible as a reliable record of events is not hampered by

that worldview, as many would claim, but actually has an advantage. Most sci-

entists are only familiar with one basic understanding of earth history and do not

actively ask critical questions of their paradigm. That is not true of a scientist

who accepts Bible history and is also active in the biological or earth sciences.

He/she cannot escape becoming knowledgeable about the prevailing theories of

earth history, as well as his/her own, and thus is constantly evaluating the op-

tions. What we want to know is truth. We donÕt need to be afraid of data, but

there is also no virtue in naively accepting whatever interpretations of the data

conventional science gives us, including a liberal interpretation of Scripture that

is ultimately dependent on the prevailing scientific theory of the history of life in

contrast to the Genesis account.

Answers to Challenges

Earlier I introduced three concerns about the effort to integrate faith and

science that must be answered by any valid integration method. First is the con-

cern that if we try to integrate faith and science, we expose our belief system to

possibly being disproven by science. But are we really afraid of that? If we be-

lieve something that is false, wouldnÕt we want to know that? And are we so

unsure of our Christian beliefs that we are afraid they will be disproved? We

may believe some things that are not truly biblicalÑsuch as the assumption that

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

134

all geological formations must be explained by the one-year flood. If we hold

such non-biblical beliefs, it is better to find out. On the other hand, truly God-

given truths will not be disproved.

It is important to understand that science is a human activity, all scientific

interpretations are subject to correction and change, and a willingness to readily

abandon basic religious beliefs because of science will not be constructive. We

may at times need to hold on to our spiritual commitments in spite of unresolved

conflicts and wait for more evidence. Non-religious scientists must do that fre-

quentlyÑtrust that data yet to be discovered will provide better answers. A bal-

anced approach will be willing to learn from science, but not be over-awed by it.

The second concern is that religious answers (God did it) will discourage

research. The discussion above illustrates that the method for integrating faith

and science outlined in Fig. 1 and in the research examples does not discourage

research, but in fact stimulates more careful research in both science and in re-

ligion, yielding insights and hypotheses that can benefit research in both do-

mains.

The third concern is the possible introduction of bias into science by the ef-

fort to integrate faith and science. The answer is that any philosophical approach

can introduce biases. Avoiding integration is not an answer and just introduces

its own serious biases. The integration method described here encourages both

science and religion to constantly challenge each other, raising our awareness of

possible biases. The other important antidote to superficial thinking and biases is

awareness of the thinking of others and working with those who disagree with

us. We will each see things that the other is likely to miss, and this acts as an

important quality control process.

Summary

Religion can introduce biases into our science, but so can any other phi-

losophical approach. The answer is to be aware of the problem, consciously

analyze our thinking to try to see if we are not being objective, and communi-

cate with others regarding our ideas and take seriously their criticisms. That

doesnÕt mean we will always agree with our critics, but we can evaluate whether

their criticisms are based on good evidence or just on their personal opinions.

Awareness of different points of view on an issue generally improves our ability

to reach a defensible conclusion. The reverse of this is also trueÑif we do not

seek to integrate science and faith it is unlikely that we will adequately under-

stand the areas where science and religion seem to be in conflict. If we do not

put forth serious effort, including original field and laboratory research, to chal-

lenge conventional thinking and develop a positive synthesis of science and

faith, we are likely to accept conventional thinking without knowing whether or

not it is based on a solid foundation.

The effort to integrate our faith and science will work best if we: 1) Allow

new scientific findings to challenge our interpretation of Scripture, and vice

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

135

versa; 2) develop and carefully evaluate our biblical anchor points; 3) utilize

insights from Scripture to open our minds to ask new questions, open our eyes to

see things that others donÕt see, and devise hypotheses that can be scientifically

tested, especially in areas of seeming conflict between science and Scripture; 4)

be aware of the work and thinking of those who have a different worldview; 5)

use the scholarly methods of quality control whenever feasibleÑpublication in

scholarly journals and working with friends whose worldview differs from ours;

and 6) above all, remember that none of this is important unless we maintain our

personal friendship and trust in the greatest and most knowledgeable biologist

and geologist of all timeÑJesus Christ.

In every case where the approach I have described has been diligently pur-

sued, with biblically motivated questions, we have made progress in our at-

tempts to reconcile Genesis and geology.

The church in the Middle Ages accepted Greek science and made aspects of

it, like the geocentric universe, part of its belief system. Then Copernicus and

Galileo changed what science understood about nature, and the church was left

behind, with some beliefs based on out-of-date science. If we adjust our theol-

ogy to fit todayÕs science, I predict that in time new scientific discoveries will

change the picture, and we will be left wondering what happened.

This prediction doesnÕt result from naivety on my part about the scientific

data. I am well aware of the data and am aware that my view of earth history

requires the prediction of major new discoveries that would change such things

as our understanding of dating methods, including radiometric dates.

Some may predict that my approach will fail. Or, they may predict that this

type of feedback between faith and science will lead me gradually down the

slippery slope to belief in the evolution of life over 540 million years. The rea-

son why that wonÕt happen is because of my confidence in the biblical anchor

points and my belief that the God of Genesis knows much more about earth sci-

ence than any of us will ever know.

We will continue to live with many unanswered questions. Faith cannot be

based on science, but on knowing and trusting Jesus. It will also not be wise to

ignore science or do sloppy science.

Just reading the geological literature and taking field trips to look at the

rocks will not give us reliable answers. We will not discover geological truth

unless we are immersed in original geological research and publishing and ac-

tively using biblical insights to challenge accepted wisdom with the highest

quality of research.

Why do we put our time and energy into this work? If a friend gives us

some clues to the location of a buried treasure, will we search for the treasure?

The answer will depend on how much confidence we have in that friend. If a

Friend gives us clues to the nature of geological history, will we use those clues

to help us make discoveries that will improve our understanding of geological

history? It depends on how well we know this Friend, and how much we trust

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

136

Him. In this research we are following up leads from a dear Friend who person-

ally loves each of usÑloves each of us enough to die to save us, and conse-

quently the search is irresistible!

Leonard Brand is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University. A

portion of this essay was originally published in Dialogue, 14/3 (Autumn 2002) 12Ð14,

33. [email protected]

References

Behe, M. 1996. DarwinÕs Black Box. New York: Free Press.

Brand., L. R. 1979. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) fossil verte-

brate footprints and their paleoecological implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

Palaeoecology, 28: 25-38.

____. 1983. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) fossil vertebrate

footprints and their paleoecological implications. Reprint of 1979 paper, in: Terrestrial Trace

Fossils. W. A. S. Sarjeant, ed., Benchmark Papers in Geology, 76: 126-139.

____. 1992. Reply to comments on "fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian)

of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin." Geology, 20: 668-670.

____. 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences. Journal of

Paleontology, 70: 1004-1010.

____. 1997. Faith, Reason, and Earth History. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP.

____. 2000a. The Bible and Science. In H. M. Rasi, ed., Symposium on the Bible and Adventist

Scholarship, 139-162. Christ in the Classroom, Vol. 26-B. Silver Spring, MD: Institute for

Christian Teaching. Dept. of Education, General Conference of SDA.

____. 2000b. The Bible and Biology. In H. M. Rasi, ed., Symposium on the Bible and Adventist

Scholarship. Christ in the Classroom, Vol. 26-B. Silver Spring, MD: Institute for Christian

Teaching. Dept. of Education, General Conference of SDA, 163-178.

____. and T. Tang. 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone [Permian] of north-

ern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin. Geology, 19: 1201-1204. Commentaries on this

paper were published in: Science News, 141 (4):5, 1992; Geology Today, 8/3: 78-79, 1992; and

Nature, 355:110, 9 Jan., 1992.

Cromer, A. 1993. Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science. New York: Oxford UP.

Dembski, W. A. (ed.) 1998. Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Downers Grove,

IL: InterVarsity.

____. 1999. Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

____. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence.

New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Esperante-Caamano, R., L. R. Brand, A. V. Chadwick, and O. Poma. 1999. Taphonomy of whales in

the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, Western Peru. Geological Society of America, annual

meeting, October, 1999. Abstracts with programs, 31(7): A-466.

____., L. R. Brand, A. Chadwick, and F. DeLucchi. 2000. Fossil whales of the Miocene/Pliocene

Pisco Formation, Peru: stratigraphy, distribution, and taphonomy. Geological Society of

America, annual meeting, November, 2000. Abstracts with programs, 32(7): A-499.

____., L. Brand, A. Chadwick, and O. Poma. 2002. Taphonomy of fossil whales in the diatomaceous

sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, Peru. pp. 337-343 In: De Renzi, M., M.

Alonso, M. Belinchon, E. Penalver, P. Montoya, and A. Marquez-Aliaga (eds.). Current Topics

on Taphonomy and Fossilization. International Conference Taphos 2002. 3rd Meeting on Ta-

phonomy and Fossilization, Valencia, Spain.

Gould, S. J. 1965. Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science 263: 223-228.

____. 1984. Lyell's vision and rhetoric. In: Berggren, W. A., and J. A. Van Couvering, eds. Catas-

trophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.

BRAND: THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND SCIENCE

137

____. 1999. Rocks of Ages. New York: The Library of Contemporary Thought; The Ballantine Pub-

lishing Group.

Johnson, P. E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

____. 1995. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

____. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Kennedy, E. G., R. Kablanow, and A. V. Chadwick. 1997. Evidence for deep water deposition of the

Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Proceedings of the 3

Biannual conference of Re-

search on the Colorado Plateau, C. VanRiper, III, and E. T. Deshler (eds.), Transactions and

Proceedings Series NPS/NRNAM/NRTP. 97/12, U. S. Dept of the Interior, 215-228.

Lyell, C. 1830-1833. Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the

EarthÕs Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation. 3 vols. John Murray, London.

(1892.) Principles of Geology, or the Modern Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants Con-

sidered as Illustrative of Geology. 11th ed. 2 vols. D. Appleton and Co., New York (the 11

edition is the most commonly used edition today).

Moreland, J. P. 1989. Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

____ (ed.). 1994. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Plantinga, A. 1997. On Christian Scholarship. http://id-www.ucsb.edu//fscf/library/plantinga/

OCS.html

Popper, K. R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row.

Ratzsch, D. 2000. Science and its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Trueblood, E. 1958. The Yoke of Christ. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Valentine, J. W. 1966. The present is the key to the present. Journal of Geological Education 14(2):

59-60.

White, E. G. W. 1864. Spiritual Gifts, 3:76-79.

____. 1890. Patriarchs and Prophets, 107-108.

Wolfe, A. 2000. The opening of the evangelical mind. The Atlantic Monthly, October, 2000, 55-76.