Photo from WordSwag

Will studying biology or accepting its rightful conclusions ruin my faith?

Part One: A Christian view of how one might approach the faithful resolution of truth from our shared faith and our growing understanding of our world

Even in this new millennium a large number of university students find little support in their home church, family or community for dealing with the intellectual challenges to their faith that they will encounter in the modern, secular university.

Worse, those in Bible schools and Christian colleges will often still find reactionary curricula that want to explain away, debunk or simply ignore established evidence gained by the last hundred years of recognized scholarship.

As a long time Christian, and an experimental biologist with more than thirty years research and teaching experience in a major secular university, it saddens me to have to acknowledge the truth of the sentences that I have just written. After all, all truth is from God, so we are most content when the truths we know, regardless of their source, fit together to form a consistent whole.

So, these thoughts are presented as one scientific Christian’s view of how one might approach the exciting journey toward a faithful resolution of truths from our shared faith and from our growing understanding of our world.

Expanding our view of God

A major result of recent advances in science and other scholarship is to encourage many believers to enlarge their views of God, sometimes appearing to come into conflict with traditional views.

Tradition is, of course, very important, and we must make progress together with a clear understanding of what our spiritual ancestors believed, and to the fullest extent possible, why they believed it and why they expressed their beliefs as they did.

Yet, like us, they were fallible, and adjustments to human thinking will always be necessary. We really do want to have the living faith of the dead, and to avoid having the dead faith of the living.

Expanding our view of creation

Coincident with an expanded view of God, I believe that we need a greatly expanded view of creation. The impetus for this comes from both scientific advances and advances in biblical scholarship and theological thinking.

Creation is a very dynamic affair. The nineteenth century's view that much was static and set that perfect types existed and that humanity has diverged from some perfect point in the past, have been effectively challenged by twentieth century science and theology.

Science has moved on to recognize the dynamism inherent in material creation, while important parts of the church have often resisted, on the grounds of some version of biblical inerrancy, and an incorrigible theology.

For many Christians then, after more than one hundred years of resistance, there is a seemingly huge gap between the foundational tenants of their faith and the generally accepted facts of science.

One aspect that often seems to be missing is the idea of unfolding – that is, the dynamism of what God has made possible and continues to make possible. For a biblical orientation, we should consider the resurrection of our Lord to be the most perfect creation event revealed in Scripture.

Beside that unique act of God, the rest of material reality is simply good and very good, and it is the product of a long unfolding. If we want to move seamlessly from truth as determined by scientific observation of the material world to truth as revealed in Scripture, we must get rid of the static, fixed views that so often pervade discussions of this sort.

Recognizing the dynamism within Scripture

An orthodox Christian understanding of Scripture should see dynamism, change, growth, and evolution everywhere. It begins, for Christians, with a relationship. This relationship is not a single event, it is a process, a daily dying that Christ might live in us to remake us into the person he always intended.

Working backwards, Israel’s relationship with its God is a very long process – a rocky evolution. Moving back still further, creation is not a single event, it is a process – for life, a 3.7 billion year process.

From this perspective we can move seamlessly from scriptural revelation to biological, geological and chemical facts, for our best science agrees that all we know in a material way is the result of a process – a process that continues.

It is most helpful to think process, unfolding, and, for believers, to add a loving creator who makes all this process possible and sustains it. This includes, of course, the unfolding of the material world and the unfolding of our relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit.

An incarnate God within creation

We serve a very active God. He is doing great things. They are all related, and all truth is his. He has made, is making and will continue to make it all possible. And, we do not need to point to specific places along the way where he intervened – all of it is his idea.

Nor do we need to think of God as ontologically included in this process, that, along with creation, God is somehow becoming more developed, perhaps more fully godlike, as process theology seems to say.

We do, however, have to envision a God who cares. A God who suffers when we suffer, a God who does not always get his way because in making everything possible, he also made and continues to make freedom possible.

His acts of making possible include allowing creation to be and to become, including allowing sentient beings to say 'no' to him, to rebel against him, to ignore him, to conclude that he does not even exist.

As believers, our challenge is to look to his Spirit for the faith to believe that his perfect love is so completely efficacious that his will will ultimately prevail.

In Part two, I will develop a bit further how we might think about expanding our view of creation and the Creator, and think about the whole matter in more dynamic terms. I will also try to offer practical ways to do this.

Dear Readers:

If ChristianWeek has made a difference in your life, please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.

Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.
Thank you, from Christianweek.

About the author


ChristianWeek Columnist

Dr. Bev Mitchell is a retired experimental biologist, university teacher and administrator. He is an informal student of theology and is especially interested in participating in discussions that might help Christians who want to find more harmony between their faith and the complex world of biology. He is a regular commenter and occasional contributor on several Christian blogs.

  • thomas jay Oord

    Great start! I look forward to part 2!

  • aedgeworth

    By expanding our view of God and creation the writer seems to hint at beyond, and sometimes contrary, to what is revealed to us in scripture. When God said: “Let there be … and there was,” how exactly do we not take that to literally mean what it says?

    Dr. Mitchell seems to regard the theory of evolution and science to be the same thing. That is not the case. Dr. Mitchell has been brain-washed by evolutionary instructors. It happens slowly and is often quite painless. One of the biggest problems of not taking the Bible literally in regards to God’s creation, is how that affects our view of other points of theology such as entering into a personal relationship with the God of creation, having our sins forgiven, receiving the gift of eternal life, the existence of a literal heaven and a literal hell. Such thinking does great harm to the gospel message.

    What an eye is, what it does, and how we treat it for disease is real science. How we got an eye and why is not science and should be restricted to a philosophy class regarding worldviews about origins.

    Small changes within a species or kind are not denied by anyone and should not be referred to as evolution proper. Speciation and adaptations should be called just that. However, adaptations are evidence of design and not blind chance. Only changes beyond the distinct kinds (cat kind, dog kind, etc) should be considered evolution, for which there is no evidence for.

    If macro evolution had been going on for 600 million years we should be able to look all around us and observe millions of life forms in every stage of transition into another kind. No such evidence exists. We also should be able to observe millions of fossils in all different stages of transition from one kind into another. No such evidence exists. Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups that don’t understand real science. “Once upon a time, long ago and far away, billions of years ago.”

    God created the distinct kinds and spoke them into existence about 6,000 years ago. There is far more scientific evidence for a young earth than what is being passed off as evidence for an old earth. The differences between chimps and humans and reptiles and birds outweigh the similarities by about a 10 to 1 margin. The reason they are looking for all these “missing links” and common ancestors between kinds is that they know the differences are too great for any of them to be directly related. Can you look at the extreme complexity of the human eye and human brain and in your wildest imagination come up with a way this could come about by random, chance, accidental mutations that just happened to be beneficial and natural selection? But if one has enough faith he just interjects his evolutionary “God of the gaps” and just blindly says: “Evolution did it.” Believe that if you must, but please don’t offend the rest of the scientific community by calling it “science.”