“Our son Kurt is an evolutionary biologist.” I enjoy saying that when I’m getting to know new acquaintances within a church setting. I watch their eyebrows. Whether they go up or stay in place tells me something about their relationship to science.
In fact, Christian universities, and especially members of the Jesuit order of priests, have been extremely prolific scientists. Do you remember the monk Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics?
But you also remember that in the early 17th Century the great scientist Galileo was forced to recant his proof of Copernicus’ insight that the earth circles the sun rather than the sun circling the earth. The faith survived that “heresy”—and the Church even survived its own foolishness in forcing the old man to recant by threatening him with torture. Finally, in 1992 the Catholic Church apologized for errors in his trial. It took until 2008 to propose erecting a statue of him in the Vatican.
So it’s official—the earth is round, and the earth moves around the sun. Glad that’s settled! But the supposed conflict between faith and science continues.
When my son Kurt returned from his expedition in Alaska one summer a few years ago, he found his email full of furious posts on the evolutionary biologists’ listserv. It seems some foolish and, frankly, ignorant cardinal in Vienna had issued an inflammatory letter to his flock condemning Darwin and all things evolutionary. Something along the lines of “We have to destroy this heresy once and for all!”
To which threat, naturally, some leading biologists responded “We have to stamp out this superstition of religion once and for all!” Kurt stayed out of the flame wars.
I am so proud of him. In addition to his fascination with the processes of evolution, he is a person of deep faith. When he began his work at Cornell, some of his lab mates were having a grand time discussing religion, and how terrible it is that some Christians—only they thought it was all Christians—understand so little of science.
Kurt listened for a while, and finally said, “You’re right, it is appalling that some religious people don’t understand science. You know what’s even more appalling? That some scientists have no clue about religion!” That silenced his lab mates and earned their respect.
So what can we say about science and faith? First, we admit that faith asks us to bet our lives on a few things

that are, frankly, beyond experimental testing. We cannot prove that God exists. We cannot prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. We cannot even prove that a human being is more than flesh, that a human is an embodied
ruach, psyche, a living spirit—that this spirit is more than the wetware of chemicals interacting in our brains. We cannot prove any of this by
scientific methods of knowing. Instead, they call on deeper kinds of knowing.
The second thing we have to say is that science itself can be a faith, holding unprovable first principles, or axioms, as basic truths which connect at a visceral, emotional level—a faith level—with those who hold them. And sometimes those axioms are proven wrong. The history of science is littered with the bones of old paradigms.
Today, with quantum astrophysicists and quantum physicists challenging even some of Einstein’s deeply held scientific faith views, and talking about the “consciousness of the universe” in ways that sound a whole lot like traditional theology, it’s a tremendously exciting time to be a person of faith interested in science. Or a scientist who knows something about religion!
I believe this is one thing Jesus meant when he said, “whoever does not receive the Kingdom of Heaven like a little child, cannot enter it.”
Whether we begin from the viewpoint of faith and its unprovable first-principles, or axioms—or whether we begin from the viewpoint of science and its unprovable axioms, let us all keep our minds open, like children’s minds, like sponges, soaking up the wonder!
John Wesley lived at a time of tremendous explosion of scientific knowledge. He was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Although to my knowledge he never directly addressed the issue of evolution, he was fascinated by science and technological advances such as electricity.
Wesley published tracts and articles on science, including a booklet called Primitive Physick, a home health and medical handbook. And he opened free clinics, since in his day, the poor had no access to health care. Some things haven’t changed so much.
And Wesley strongly advised maintaining health through keeping a regular schedule including 8 hours of sleep, a varied but simple diet, plenty of exercise, and keeping one’s body and surroundings clean—a radical idea in his day, and not so easy without automatic washing machines! But very scientific. Some things haven’t changed at all!
All of this Wesley called plundering the Egyptians, taking from science all that was valuable. Although his worldview was that of a clergyman, he saw no contradiction between faith, and Scripture, and the new discoveries of science. Because his God was big enough to be the creator of the universe!
This is the core of the argument: Is our God big enough and powerful enough to have created this beautiful home of ours four billion years ago? Or do we limit God to the last four thousand?
Is our God big enough and powerful enough to have created billions of galaxies, stars and planets, or just our own? Is Christ the Word of God, through whom all this was created?
And is God loving and clever enough to have created beings, through evolution, whose consciousness somehow connects with God’s consciousness? And is this God loving enough to constrain the way all this power is expressed, in order to set us free, to give us free will? And can we believe that this God is crazy in love with us and yearns after us by sending Christ to live with us?
This is the issue, I think, for faith people. It’s so incredible to realize that this unimaginably huge God reaches down and loves tiny little me that we have trouble holding both ideas in the human brain at the same time. So we humans divide up the job. We let scientists develop faith beliefs around the hugeness of the universe that cut us down to the size of a chemical process. And we let religious people cut God down to a size they can relate to.
But both these viewpoints are insults to God!
If we really believe that God is the Creator of the universe, then every new discovery simply fills us with wonder at how great God is! The Psalmist says, “The heavens are telling the glory of God!” Scientific discoveries are the footprints of God. We have nothing to fear from science. Likewise, then, science should have nothing to fear from religion.
Now, we can’t leave this issue without considering the Methodist understanding of Scripture. Wesley lived in the days before scholars began to study Scripture with the tools of archaeology, history, literature, and sociology, so naturally his writings refer to scripture in ways that seem quaint to us.
For example, Primitive Physick begins with an explanation of how sickness is the result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Genesis. And yet, how deeply true that is on a psychological and spiritual level! Wesley seems amazingly modern a few paragraphs later when he warns that “the passions” - that is, emotions and stresses—are the source of much disease! Can we respect Wesley as an amazingly forward-thinking man of his time rather than asking him to be like us?
And when we study the Bible, do we respect our Spirit-inspired ancestors who told sacred stories, eventually wrote them down, edited them, and passed them on to us? Do we respect them enough to say, “They were amazingly in tune with God, and the Holy Spirit spoke through them in ways that they could understand, and the Holy Spirit still speaks to us through their stories, their testimony?”
When we remember that the Holy Spirit enables Christians to speak all languages, can we remember that the Holy Spirit also speaks scientific?