DRAFT OF A CHAPTER

 

ENCOUNTERS OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

Charles P. Poole, Jr.

Original version March 2004; rewritten February, 2005; revised June 20, 2006

                                     

CONTENTS

 

            1.  Introduction

            2.  Theology Encounters Science

            3.  Big Bang Theory

            4.  Genetic Code

            5.  Psychology

            6.  Scripture

            7.  Shroud of Turin

            8.  Religious Phenomena

            9.  Life and Death, Scientific Perspective

          10.  Life and Death, Theological Perspective

          11.  Stored Embryos

          12.  Moral Decisions      

          13.  Summas

                References

 

1.  INTRODUCTION

 

          Throughout history people have sought to understand the world in its entirety.  The craving of the human intellect for an overall understanding of the world is as pronounced today as it was in the Middle Ages and in ancient Greece.   Unfortunately conflicts can arise when different sources provide us with diverse input data and conflicting interpretations of these data about the world.  To understand these discrepancies, it will be instructive to examine some of the ancient and several more modern disputes between belief systems of religion and science. 

 

Go to Top

2. THEOLOGY ENCOUNTERS SCIENCE

 

          The rise of modern science led to several encounters with Christian theological traditions.  First Newtonian Mechanics provided a mechanistic explanation of the physical universe which appeared to remove the need for a deity.  Then Darwinian evolution seemed to discredit the Genesis accounts of creation, and reduce man to the status of a mere animal.  Next traditional Freudian psychology’s naturalistic approach left little room for a spiritual component in the human psyche.  Finally Bultmann’s demythologization of the scriptures through higher criticism called into the question the veracity of much of their content.  It seemed that God was gradually being eliminated from serious intellectual pursuits, and many Christians sought refuge in isolationism. 

 

          In recent decades the situation has been gradually improving, and now the sciences present a view of Nature which can be harmonized with a Christian perspective.  We will provide several examples of this. 

 

Go to Top

3.  BIG BANG THEORY

 

          The first example is the Big Bang theory which describes a universe that began at a particular instant in time and subsequently underwent a continuous expansion from a single point until it reached its present configuration.  The Hebrew word yom used in the Genesis account can mean either a 24-hour day, or an indefinite period of time1,2,   so the Genesis account does not preclude development within epochs.  There is a pronounced improvement in the agreement of the first creation story (Chap. 1) with the scientific account, if the events of the biblical fourth day are moved to a position between those of the first and second days.  The physicist Schramm3 identifies seven stages in the development of the universe from an initial quantized gravity state to the present configuration, and his first five stages antedate the events described during the biblical first day.  It is curious to note that Schramm’s sixth or photon (light) scientific epoch began at the age of three minutes, and lasted for 100,000 years, while the biblical account places the creation of light during the second day. 

 

          What is most important is that the Genesis account describes a creation in six linear temporal stages starting with inanimate matter, proceeding through plants and sea creatures, and ending with land animals and finally man, while modern scientific accounts employ logarithmic (non-linear) stages also beginning with inanimate matter, proceeding through plants and sea creatures and ending with animals and finally man.  Genesis is certainly not scientifically correct in the details of the order in which many features were created, and much of the apparent agreement between the two scenarios could indeed be coincidental. As was noted above, if the fourth day of the Genesis account, the creation of the sun and moon, is moved to second  place in the order then the biblical chronology becomes closer to the scientific one.  With this change the overall similarities of the two accounts are surprising.   For more details see the chapter Providential Design on the Cosmology page of this website.

 

Go to Top

4.  GENETIC CODE

 

          The second example concerns the genetic code which is stored in every cell in the body of every animal, and which contains the blueprint for the development of the entire organism.  Biologists have found that every living being has DNA utilizing the same genetic code, written with the same molecular alphabet.  Hence they all constitute the same kind of life which went through a series of developmental stages, and, quite recently on a geological scale4, culminated in the appearance of man.  This biological account is quite easy to harmonize with a Christian perspective since the Genesis story implies the existence of only one type of life, and it enumerates successive developmental stages. 

 

5.  PSYCHOLOGY

 

          The third example concerns psychologists who have found out that a religious attitude is beneficial because, when the stresses of life weigh heavily on the psyche it is psychologically helpful to turn to God for consolation5-8.  In other words, adopting a religious attitude often helps to alleviate or cure a neurosis.  One can also argue historically that it is the natural condition of mankind to have a religious attitude, and to live in a culture which is God-centered.  Thus, psychological viewpoints which are reconcilable with Christianity, although not necessarily dominant, are at least viable. 

 

Go to Top

6.  SCRIPTURE

 

          The fourth example concerns how in recent decades some of Bultmann’s demythologization ideas, archeological discoveries, the Dead Sea Scrolls, analyses of the developing consciousness of Jesus, and insights from literary and historical criticism. have been utilized by scripture scholars of all persuasions11-12.  This process and the wide acceptance across denominational lines of the Nestle-Aland New Testament so-called  Textus Receptus13 with its meticulously compiled critical apparatus have provided a kind of consensus among biblical scholars, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike, about the scriptural foundations of our Faith.  Thus scientific methodologies have had their encounters with the scriptures, and the Word of God  has emerged more secure. 

 

7.  SHROUD OF TURIN

 

          The fifth example is the Shroud of Turin which has undergone extensive examinations by scientists of various types and persuasions.  Carbon-14 dating indicates that the cloth was made with a 95% probability between the years 1260 and 1390, corresponding to the mean value of 1325 AD.  The probability is 99.9% for a date between 1000 and 1500.  Some have questioned the validity of the dating, but I am willing to accept it.  Historically the Shroud first appeared in the year 1357 on exhibit in a small church in Lirey, France, about 160 kilometers (about 100 miles) southeast of Paris.  It was brought to the cathedral in Turin in 1578.  The first photographs taken by Secondo Pia in 1898 showed surprisingly that the image was a negative, and photography with its negative images  had only been in existence for fifty years.  In 1902 the avowed agnostic Yves Delage lectured to the French academy on the authenticity of the Shroud, and the academicians refused to publish his remarks9.  In 1931 the French surgeon Dr. Pierre Barbet examined photographs of the shroud and reported that the image on it was a perfect reproduction of a male human body.  There is evidence of the presence of pollen from the Holy Land among the fibers of the cloth.  There are blood stains, and the image is a surface phenomenon which has never been explained by the initial scientific investigations that were completed in 1978, or by any subsequent investigation.  The results of the scientific investigations of the Shroud appeared in the June 1980 issue of the National Geographic, and several more such articles have been published in various standard scientific journals14.  Thus we have now come to the point where the scientific investigation of religious objects has become respectable, and competent scientists can participate in projects of this type without tarnishing their reputations.  As a concluding remark, it is my belief that if God wished to provide us with an unexplainable portrait of the buried Jesus there is no reason why He must necessarily have it imprinted it on a 2000 year old piece of cloth, rather than on a 650 year old piece of cloth. 

 

Go to Top

8.  RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA

 

          There are a number of religious phenomena which merit serious study by impartial scientists using standard scientific methods and state of the art instrumentation.  The object of such studies must be to increase our understanding of the phenomena, not to confirm their validity, or to expose them as frauds.  Several examples will be mentioned: 1) saintly contemplative individuals, their physiology, brain wave patterns and psychology during ecstasies, the medical nature of their stigmata if present, etc.; 2) diabolic possession, haunted houses, seances, voodooism, and other reported manifestations of a spirit world interacting with our world; 3) more precise studies of the point of death, reports of out-of-body and return from death experiences15; 4) more systematic investigations of miraculous cures; 5) thorough studies of parapsychology, psychic individuals, mental telepathy, and related phenomena.  Believers describe these cases in terms of an interaction between material and spiritual worlds, and nonbelievers provide materialistic explanations for them.  What is most needed is impartial studies by competent, reliable scientists to provide objective data which will be of assistance to all who seek an unbiased understanding of these phenomena. 

 

9.  LIFE AND DEATH, SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE

 

          Recent advances in science make it necessary to address a number of ethical questions.  One of the most controversial of these issues is the establishment of criteria for life and death17-19.  At the present time there is a general consensus in our society to accept from science the cessation of an electroencephalograph brain wave pattern as a legal definition of death.  To be internally self-consistent, the scientific beginning of human life should be set at least as early as the onset of a detectable brain wave pattern, which occurs at about 40 days.  The older heart beat criterion would be earlier still, from 18 to 25 days.  Biologically, the only change that occurs at birth is the change in the life support system, so it is arbitrary and unscientific to select birth as the start of human life. 

 

          Under closer examination the scientific facts mandate the choice of an earlier beginning point of human life at either conception or implantation.  At fertilization, the union of a male sperm cell and a female ovum to produce a fertilized ovum with a unique DNA is certainly, scientifically speaking, the beginning of a human life.  However it is not, scientifically speaking, necessarily the beginning of a single, unique, human individual.  During the first few cell divisions, and continuing until about the fourteenth day when implantation at the placenta in the uterus takes place, the various cells that comprise the embyo are what is called totipotent. This means that each cell can split off or be separated from the embryo, and develop into a complete human being, with each identical twin possessing the same DNA.  After implantation individual cells of the embryo become programmed to produce particular types of tissues, and can no longer generate a new twin embryo.  Thus, scientifically speaking, at about the 14th day of gestation the embryo has begun the process of forming a single, individual, unique, human person.  Had twinning taken place then implantation would constitute the beginning of two (or more) particular, unique, human individuals. Beyond this stage of development, from a scientific/ethical viewpoint, the intentional killing of the embryo cannot be justified.  It is human, morally sacred, and hence has a right to live.  More pointedly, prior to implantation all of the cells of the embryo are destined to participate in forming one or more particular, unique, human individuals, so the characteristic of moral sacredness applies to them also. The intentional killing of an embryo prior to or subsequent to implantation cannot be justified.  A scientific perspective as well as a theological perspective support this conclusion. 

 

Go to Top

10.  LIFE AND DEATH, THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

 

          The Catholic theological perspective on the beginning point of human life is clear from Sect. 2270 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which states: 

 

          Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment

          of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must

          be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the

          inviolable right of every innocent being to life. 

 

Sect. 2273 further states:

 

          The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a

          constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. [italics from CCC],  

 

Sect. 2274 continues:

 

          Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be

          defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like

          any other human being.  

 

and Sect. 2275 provides three quotations from CDF, Donum Vitae for further clarification:

 

One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which

respect the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and do not

          involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the   

          improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival. 

 

It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as

          disposable biological material.

 

Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic,

but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other

predetermined qualities.  Such manipulations are contrary to

          the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity which

          are unique and unrepeatable.  

         

          In recent years the Jesuit journal Theological Studies (TS) published a number of speculative articles on what they classify as a quaestio disputata, namely delayed hominization20,21, or the theory that the soul enters the embryo at implantation [TS 36:305 (1975); 54:124 (1993); 56:743,763 (1995); 57:731 (1996); 58:708,715 (1997); 62:811 (2001)].            

 

Go to Top

11.  STORED EMBRYOS

 

          At the present time there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of human embryos preserved in cryogenic storage.  Pertinent moral questions are what is their status, and, what is to become of them?  Many, perhaps the majority, of them are at the eight cell or three day old stage, which means they are totipotent.  Has ensoulment taken place yet?  Should we develop techniques for baptizing them?  I would feel relieved to learn that they are not yet ensouled.  We await the judgment of the Magisterium on the issue.   

 

Go to Top

 

12.  MORAL DECISIONS

 

          Christians base their moral decisions on input from secular knowledge, human reason, and above all from Tradition and Divine Revelation, whereas ethicists outside the Christian tradition do not accept scripture based norms, and are often guided by principles from particular philosophical points of view, and perhaps from other religious traditions.  When confronting bioethical issues this presents Christian moralists with a twofold task: 1) to decide what guidelines based on scripture are permissible or preferable norms of behavior for Christians, and 2) to investigate what human knowledge and reason alone can provide as norms of behavior suitable for legislation in a pluralistic society, while bearing in mind that norms based on reason or natural law arguments are often less restrictive than those based on scripture or theological principles.   An example is the assertion of some Catholic moralists that polygamy is against the law of Christ, but not against the natural law.  Also, a fundamentalist religious sect might use scriptural arguments to ban the drinking of alcoholic beverages by its adherents, but would not be justified in imposing such a ban on others.  We Christians are immersed in a very materialistic, secular, pagan culture which is planning a future very much at variance with our Christian traditions.  We must learn how to formulate and present cogent arguments which will be convincing to our opponents. 

 

13.  SUMMAS

 

          In the Middle Ages a number of philosophers formulated syntheses of the scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge of their day, and the most famous and most influential of these has been the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas.  In more recent centuries others have appeared, such as the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, and the Critiques of Pure and Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant.  In the previous generation Pierre Teilhard de Chardin22 formulated an imaginative synthesis involving ideas from anthropology,  biology and theology.  Pendergast23 utilized General System Theory for a broader synthesis of science and theology, and Meyer24 and Gerhart and Russell25 analyzed factors to be taken into account in a contemporary Summa.  At the present time we are very much in need of a Summa to gather together the known facts of science and theology into a coherent system of knowledge.  Such a work would clarify what we know from reason alone, what we can conclude by adding input from revelation, and what we believe on the basis of revelation alone.  This would provide believers with an intellectually acceptable overall belief system, and in addition it would permit us to clarify our stand on bioethical issues with respect to what Christians should believe themselves, and what they ought to advocate for society.  Ideally such a Summa would either resolve or explain many remaining conflicts between science and theology. 

 

Go to Top

REFERENCES

 

1.  P. L. Glenn, Cosmology, Herder, St. Louis, 1951, p. 221. 

2.  A. Robert and A. Tricot, Initiation Biblique, Desclee & Cie, Paris, 1948, p. 464. 

3.  D. N. Schramm, Physics Today, April 1983, p. 27.

4.  I. Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage, N.Y. 1957

5.  C. S. Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul, 1933

6.  F. Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin, Hawthorn Books, 1973.

7.  Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, Vintage, 1972. 

8.  Theodosius Dobzhanski, The Biology of Ultimate Concern

9.   K. E. Stevenson and B. K. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud, Servant Books, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 11981

10,  I. Wilson, The Shroud of Turin, Image Books, N.Y., 1979

11.  R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy, Eds., Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, N. J. , 1968

12.  J. Guillet, The Consciousness of Jesus, Newman, N, Y, , 1971

13.  E. Nestle and K. Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, Deutsche Bibelstiffung, Stuttgart, 1979

14.  S. F. Pellicori and R. A. Chandros, Research and Development, Feb.  1981, p. 186, J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler, Applied Optics, August 15, 1984, R. A. Morris, L. A. Schwalbe and J. R. London, X-Ray Spectrometry, April, 1980; see also various issues of Update, Shroud of Turin Research Project, 

15.  K. Osis and E. Haraldson, At the Hour of Death, Avon, N. Y., 1975

16.  P. Kitcher, Abusing Science, The Case Against Creationism, MIT Press, Massachusetts, 1982

17.  J. C. Willke, Abortion Handbook, Hayes, Ohio, 1975

18.  C. Young, The Least of These, Moody, Chicago, 1983

19.  D. C. Thomasma, An Apology for the Value of Human Life, Catholic Health Assoc., St. Louis, 1983 

20.  T. A. Shannon and A. B. Wolter, Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo, Chap 2 in Bioethics, T. A. Shannon, ed., Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1994.

21. N. M. Ford, When Did I Begin?, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991. 

22.  P. Teilhard de Chardin, S. J., Le Phénomène Humain, Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 1955 

23.  R. J. Pendergast, S. J., Cosmos, Fordham Univ. Press, N.Y., 1973. 

24.  C. Meyer, Religious Belief in a Scientific Age, Thomas More, 1983.

25.  M. Gerhart and A. Russell, Metaphoric Process; Creating a Scientific and Religious Understanding, Texas Christian Univ. Press, Fort Worth, 1984. 

 

Go to Top