Science has been defined as systematized knowledge, as any branch of inquiry concerned with the observation and classification of facts and the establishment of verifiable general laws. Religion is a system of faith and worship, or the profession and practice of religious beliefs. If by science is meant organized knowledge about the material universe; and if by religion is meant organized knowledge about the Designer and Creator of the universe and about His will concerning the relationships of human beings with one another and with their Maker, and the practice of these principles, there is no reason for conflicts between science and religion. Truth, whether scientific or spiritual, whether measurable or beyond the scope of direct human observation and testing, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations. Seventh-day Adventists often refer to these concepts as “true science” and “true religion.”
Seventh-day Adventists recognize the validity of proved scientific principles and data, and believe that an understanding of the natural world contributes, in turn, to a better understanding of the Creator and of His will for humanity. They consider that nature, in its perfect state, is an expression of the divine character, mind, and will, and that the natural world, rightly understood, is in complete harmony with the revelation of the divine character, mind, and will set forth in Scripture. Verifiable science and scriptural truth are always in perfect accord. The following quotations are typical:
“True science and true religion have a common origin” (Dr. [James?] Cumming, quoted in Review and Herald 13:107, Feb. 24, 1859).
“Genuine geology is as true as the Bible and it does not contradict the Bible; for truth cannot contradict truth” (D. T. Bourdeau, in Review and Herald 29:98, Feb. 5, 1867).
“We are not opposed to science, by any means; for we believe its principles to be in perfect harmony with the Bible” (J. O. Corliss, in Review and Herald 55:116, Feb. 19, 1880).
“Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. . . . The book of nature and the written Word shed light upon each other” ( PP 115).
“A knowledge of science of all kinds is power, and it is in the purpose of God that advanced science shall be taught in our schools” (Ellen White, in Review and Herald 68:737, Dec. 1, 1891).
The interaction between the disciplines of science and religion has not always been harmonious and complementary. A consideration of this conflict calls for a broader definition of both science and religion. Science is not simply observation and fact, but a human search for truth, and as such, subject to all human limitations. The great fallacy of the century is the idea, prevalent among those uninitiated in science, that it is “a sort of intellectual machine,” completely impersonal and empirical in its search for ultimate truth, that its thinking is “exclusively and inerrantly logical in the most formidable sense, and its language utterly . . . precise and unambiguous” (Harold K. Schilling, in Science 127:1324, June 6, 1958).
Too often no sharp distinction is made between a theory and a fact, when in actuality, from a preliminary hypothesis to a basic theory or law there is a continuum, with varying degrees of confirmation. “The highest conceit in any field—scientific, religious, or otherwise—is the assumption that there are no assumptions” (Walter E. Stuermann, Logic and Faith, p. 62 ). All scientific knowledge is only more or less probable, depending on the preciseness of the data upon which it is based. A knowledge of ultimate reality, ultimate physics, chemistry, or biology does not exist in the mind of man. As the philosopher would point out, humans “know” only what they perceive, not objects themselves that occasion these perceptions.
Science cannot proceed otherwise than from hypotheses, from inferences, that, after evaluation and testing, are retained, modified, or replaced. The best that can be hoped for is a high percentage of verifiable knowledge, verifiable as to its usefulness if not its ultimate truth. This method has resulted in phenomenal material progress. The spectacular success achieved by science has tended to arouse in laypersons unwarranted confidence in even the most tenuous theories proposed in the name of science.
The study of religion is likewise subject to certain human limitations. Because of these limitations the study of the written Word is fraught with possibilities of error comparable with those encountered in a study of the natural world. The unfortunate conflict that has arisen in recent times between the study of science and religion is not the result of inherent irreconcilability between revealed truth and scientific truth. The apostle Paul said, “Now we see through a glass, darkly; . . . now I know in part” ( 1 Cor. 13:12 ). It is not surprising, then, that since human limitations are present in the study of both science and religion, misunderstanding and conflict should sometimes exist ( see PP 114; R. H. Brown, in Ministry 31:19, March 1958).
Issues of the conflict between science and religion are deeply rooted in the historical setting in which the controversy developed. The formative period of the Seventh-day Adventist Church coincided with the crest of a wave of intellectual reaction against the rigid, blind, ecclesiastical authoritarianism of the Middle Ages. The rigid rule of dogma that dominated the medieval mind, and often placed restrictive sanctions against scientific investigation, suffered a severe blow as a result of the persecution of those such as Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo. It was the dogmatic preconceptions of theologians, based on their blind reliance upon the Aristotelian philosophical system, upon medieval scholastic speculations, and upon their misunderstanding of the meaning of Scripture, that led them to oppose scientific investigation. This blind, dogmatic reaction to early scientific discoveries marked the beginning of one of the most profound changes in outlook the human race has ever experienced—the rise of free, imaginative investigation. When a pendulum breaks loose, it never stops at the middle of its first swing.
Opposition by both Catholic and Protestant clergy to scientific discoveries naturally tended to force science outside of the church, with the result that it developed to a large extent on non-Christian premises. Ecclesiastical opposition, on imaginary biblical grounds, to such things as the rotation and sphericity of the earth, the use of lightning rods on churches (“attempting to control the artillery of heaven”), inoculation and vaccination, the use of anesthetics in childbirth and surgery, chemistry (“a devilish art”), etc., tended to undermine confidence in the church and its sacred Book, the Holy Scriptures.
The medieval practice of invoking a miraculous explanation for any phenomenon not readily explainable set the stage for abandoning the idea of a miracle-working God, as one by one such phenomena were shown to have a rational explanation on the basis of known laws of nature ( see Miracles ). By the second half of the nineteenth century, science had gained a position of considerable respect, and free thinking had come into its own. But the reaction to ecclesiastical dogmatism often led to extreme positions. At times the dogmatizing theologian found his counterpart in a dogmatic materialist.
While unhesitatingly endorsing the established principles of science and the value of scientific truth, Seventh-day Adventist writers have always opposed any hypothesis that seemed to be at variance with the revealed truth of Scripture (S. Pierce, in Review and Herald 38:121, 122, Oct. 3, 1871). Their attitude has been one of caution either in the acceptance of new interpretations of scientific findings that might at first appear to contradict principles set forth in the Bible, or in the abandoning of earlier interpretations of the Bible in the light of clearly established scientific truths.
In fields as broad and complex as the sciences on one hand, and theology on the other, it would be too much to expect that in the dialogue between the disciplines there would not be some mistaken and unfair charges on both sides. A theologian endeavoring to answer allegations that the “facts of science” disprove the Scriptures may not always fully discriminate between verifiable facts and the speculative conclusions drawn from them, and may for a time oppose both. Sometimes, also, conflict arose from interpretations of Scripture that fuller study showed to be invalid (e.g., the rigid fixity of species versus limited change within basic groups).
From the first, Seventh-day Adventist authors have opposed all theories that construe the days of Creation week as long geologic ages, and also theories that presume to account for the complex higher organisms by evolution from simple ancestors, which in turn were supposed to have originated by spontaneous generation ( Review and Herald 13:28, Dec. 16, 1858; 16:49, July 3, 1860; 3SG 91 [1864]; James White, in Review and Herald 55:104, 105, Feb. 12, 1880; Ed 130 [1903]). They actively opposed, on scriptural grounds, the speculations of pantheism, which would reduce God to an essence pervading all nature. Deism, which seeks to separate God from an active concern with the events of this earth, was similarly opposed ( Review and Herald 81:4, 5, Feb. 11, 1904; 81:5, 6, Apr. 14, 1904; MH 413; GC 318).
Seventh-day Adventist writers often stressed the limitations of science, the hazards of accepting as oracles hypotheses based on limited or uncritical observation, and hasty generalization in sciences still in a relative state of infancy ( Review and Herald 13:28, Dec. 16, 1858; D. T. Jones, in Review and Herald 60:497, 498, Aug. 7, 1883; 60:513, 514; 60:529, 530). The principle that truth as revealed in the Word of God should be taken into account when evaluating scientific data and formulating explanations for natural phenomena has been set forth repeatedly ( CT 425, 530; S. N. Haskell, in Review and Herald 75:366, June 7, 1898).
Yet, recognizing that knowledge is progressive, Seventh-day Adventists investigate apparently conflicting evidence. Writing on the general principle of investigation of new views, Ellen White stated: “We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but one who is infallible. . . . If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it” ( GW 125–131 [1893]).
Seventh-day Adventist and other writers have applied this same principle specifically to science and religion (H. W. Clark, in Ministry, 19:35, 36, October 1946; R. E. Hoen, in Ministry, 31:4–8, February 1958; cf. D. N. Lord, quoted in Review and Herald 55:98, 99, Feb. 12, 1880).
Order is apparent in the natural world, and Seventh-day Adventists believe that God, as Creator, is the author of both natural and moral law. “God does not annul His laws, or work contrary to them; but He is continually using them as His instruments” ( PP 114 [1890]).
Although God created the world and “set” it “to run” by law, “it is not by inherent power that . . . the earth . . . continues its march around the sun,” for He still upholds “all things by the word of His power” (A. W. Peterson, in Review and Herald 105:4, Oct. 4, 1928; MH 416, 417 [1905]; cf. Heb. 11:3 ).
The oft-repeated charge that to accept God and the supernatural stultifies scientific research (see George Gaylord Simpson, in Science 131:973, Apr. 1, 1960) is groundless unless one holds to the medieval concept that God is a god of caprice. It is as meaningful and challenging to investigate the mysteries of the laws by which the Creator works as it would be to study supposedly self-existent laws.
In harmony with the prophets of ancient times, Seventh-day Adventists have taught that there is a positive relationship between science and religion, that through the book of nature, as through the book of divine revelation, the eye of faith may behold the infinite wisdom and love of the Creator (L. A. Hansen, in Review and Herald 74:194, 195, Mar. 30, 1897).
“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things” ( Isa. 40:26 ).
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” ( Ps. 19:1 ).
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” ( Rom. 1:20 ).
Seventh-day Adventists consider the universal evidence of design and purpose in both the inanimate and the living world to be “clear and incontestible proof of a Divine Architect and of that counsel and wisdom wherewith He rules and directs the universe” (Stackhouse, quoted in Review and Herald 24:10, June 7, 1864; cf. MH 410–418 [1905]).
The provisions in the environment on this earth that, collectively, make life possible are too numerous to be accounted for by chance ( cf. W. J. Byran, reprinted in Review and Herald 100:2, 18, Oct. 25, 1923). The periodic system of the elements, the structure of matter from the atom to the universe, the remarkable intricacy and complexity of living systems, all point to an infinite Mind, a Designer of incomprehensible ability and power (G. M. Price, in Review and Herald 108:8–10, Oct. 22, 1931). In considering the intricacies of the human body, G. K. Abbott concluded that “if it takes personal intelligence to discover the purposes in these structures, there is no escaping the conclusion that it takes a greater intelligence to design them” ( Review and Herald 106:17, Jan. 10, 1929).
According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is like a great clock that, left to itself, would eventually run down and become uniformly cold, so that no life could exist. The many still-active one-way processes in nature by which energy is changed to less available forms, the existence of suns and stars that are still hot and of radioactive elements that have not yet completely disintegrated, are all strong evidence not only of finite age but of a source of energy whose origin transcends the known laws of nature. It requires more faith not to postulate a Creator than to believe that the precision, order, interdependence, and infinite variety observable in the natural world testify to an infinite, supernatural, ultimate Cause. A Creator seems to be the most reasonable solution (G. M. Price, in Review and Herald 97:5, 6, Dec. 2, 1920; Robert E. D. Clark, reprinted in Signs of the Times 87:21, 22, 30, 31, February 1960).
Science alone can never explain the spiritual forces at work in the earth, the moral nature of human beings, their sense of higher values. “Impersonal forces do not love. Blind energy has no heart” (G. K. Abbott, in Review and Herald 106:18, Jan. 10, 1929).
These are but a few of the evidences from science ( see also Creation ; Evolution ; Flood ) that strengthened Seventh-day Adventist confidence in the positive relationship between science and religion. But science alone is not enough. Although many facts of nature point to a Supreme Intelligence in the universe, the true God cannot be fully known by science. One cannot “by searching find out God” ( Job 11:7 ; Ed 133, 134). The revelation recorded in Holy Writ and seen in the person and life of Jesus Christ is necessary in order to know the personal God of Scripture (J. N. Loughborough, in Review and Herald 18:177, 178, Nov. 5, 1861; MH 418, 419; L. A. Smith, in Review and Herald 81:4, 5, Jan. 28, 1904). The revelation contained in the Word of God is necessary for meaning and perspective in science. Revelation in the world of science gives added meaning to religion.