Pursuing Truth as Persons of Faith

Alice C. Linsley

"The ignorance of Scripture is a great cliff and a deep abyss; to know nothing of the divine laws is a great betrayal of salvation. This has given birth to heresies, this has introduced a corrupt way of life, this has put down the things above. For it is impossible, impossible for anyone to depart without benefit if he reads continually with attention."- St. John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD)

If Scripture is reliable and the empirical method is valuable, shouldn't the two work together for those who sincerely want to understand the Bible?

It is often said that faith assertions cannot be proven by science, but that is a fallacy. A reader once wrote to tell me, "Science and beliefs do not mix." I responded that "Science begins in belief. One must believe something even to think scientifically."

Another reader shot off this remark, "The Bible and theology are not the enemy of the biological evolution; they are superfluous."

That's the sort of brainless remark one reads at many science sites "where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the 'skeptical community' go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?" -- Virginia Heffernan, The New York Times Magazine

Science, at its best, points us to what is real and true. Because that is so, we can expect good science to verify, confirm, and align with the data of Scripture. When something true is asserted evidence can be found to confirm the assertion.

Christians have nothing to fear from science. In a study published by the American Scientific Affiliation, it is estimated that 60% of the breakthroughs in science and technology have been made by persons professing to be Christian.

Ian Hutchinson, one of the world's leading plasma physicists, has written:

"MIT, my home institution, the high-temple of science and technology in the United States, has a pseudo-Greek temple architecture about its main buildings. The fluted columns are topped not with baccanalian freizes, but with the names of the historical heroes of science (not to mention William Barton Rogers, the founder). A rough assessment was carried out by a few of us some years ago of the fraction of the people listed there who were Christians. The estimate we arrived at was about 60%."

The list of giants in physical science must include Copernicus (1473-1543); Galileo (1564-1642); Bacon (1561-1626), Kepler (1571-1630); Pascal (1623-1662); Faraday (1791-1867); Maxwell (1831-1879), and Ian Hutchinson (an Anglican).

In the fields of chemistry and medical technology, we have Robert Boyle (1627-1691); Robert Runnels Williams (1886--1965) and his brother Roger J. Williams (1893--1988), both world-renown chemists, and Raymond V. Damadian, the inventor of the MRI.

In botany and nutrition, we find Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), George Washington Carver (1864-1943), and Ann Marie Thro. Ann is a senior advisor for Plant Health Production and Products with the National Institute for Food and Agriculture.

In the field of paleontology, we have Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and Mary Anning (1799-1847).

Astronomy found an early advocate in Agnes Giberne (1845-1939). Georges Lemaître (1894--1966) advanced understanding of astrophysics as a Roman Catholic priest. Jennifer Wiseman is a NASA astronomer who discovered periodic comet 114P/Wiseman-Skiff while working as a research assistant in January 1987. Jennifer often speaks in public on the relationship of faith and science.

Christians have broken ground in mathematics also. Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718-1799) developed a comprehensive treatment of algebra, including the foundations of integral and differential calculus. Computers came into existence largely because of the mathematical genius of Sister Mary Celine Fasenmyer (1906-1996). Her hypergeometric polynomial sequences are the progenitor of the computerized methods used today to prove hypergeometric identities.

All of these remarkable figures expressed commitment to Jesus Christ and to excellence in their fields. None would say that the Christian faith and their research were incompatible.

So why do many assume that Science and Scripture are in conflict? We do so because data requires human interpretation and interpretation is influenced by the ego and by various agendas.

Dr. John Hawks, a world-renown paleoanthropologist, acknowledges the role ego plays in anthropological nomenclature. He noted that arguing about species has more to do with ego than with morphological evidence. At his website he wrote:

"Just today, I got notification of a new paper by Walter Neves and colleagues, in which they suggest that Australopithecus sediba and Homo naledi are actually South African representatives of Homo habilis. Some people might scoff at this--after all, the Dinaledi fossils are only 236,000--335,000 years old, while the latest-known H. habilis is around 1.6 million. But a young date for some fossils doesn't bar them from membership in a species with much older fossil representatives. Identity is tested with morphological evidence, not geological age." ("Arguing about species: Is it evidence, or ego?" 3 Aug. 2017)

Ego-driven interpretation is a factor in the supposed conflict between Scripture and Science. The age of the earth debate is an example. Humility is part of the solution. We also need to read Scripture as a scientist would; reading with greater attention to details, and identifying biblical data.

Both Scripture and the natural world speak of the Creator and the Logos in whom there is no falsehood. Our God urges us to seek wisdom and delights to help us find the truth.

Small differences in the Gospel narratives, for example, do not disprove them. These simply mean that eye witnesses noted different details. Were all the details of the narratives identical we would have evidence of collusion. Such testimony is denied in a court of law.

Contradiction between the assertions of Scripture and the assertions of Science are another matter. The age of the earth cannot be billions of years old and 10,000 years old. Which is it? Contradictions arise when we are faced with inaccurate interpretations and/or inadequate information. At its best, science investigates all avenues of information, including claims of the Bible. This approach taken by biblical archaeologists has led to many important discoveries in the Holy Land.

Good science asks whether a Scriptural assertion is true based on empirical evidence. Good Bible interpretation investigates how data in the Bible aligns with findings in the sciences. Take as an example Genesis 2:10-13. "A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush.

This asserts that Havilah in the land of Cush is rich in gold, bdellium and onyx. A search of the geologic record of the Upper Nile reveals that this region is indeed rich in gold. Studies in botany indicate that Bdellium is a resin that comes from trees that grow in the Upper Nile, especially in Ethiopia (ancient Nubia). The archaeological record reveals that the ancient Egyptians were the first to produce great artifacts of onyx. Onyx was used as early as the Second Dynasty to make bowls, jewelry and figurines. It was mined south of Egypt and also in areas of Eurasia that were under Egyptian control.

Bible interpretation at its best asks whether there is empirical evidence for the Scriptural assertion. Good Bible study investigates deeply to see whether the claims of Scripture are true. This praise worthy quality of the Bereans is the same quality that should be found in every serious Christian disciple.

After 40 years of studying the Bible through the scientific lens, I am convinced that there is a perfect alignment between the assertions and data of the Bible and the findings of the best science.

It comes down to humility, due diligence, and empirically justified interpretations. This is a task for all who wish to be apologists for the Christian faith. It is a task that makes outreach to the world more fruitful, and conversation with young people more relevant.

Wrong interpretations and misrepresentations of the Bible lead to bad theology. Ignoring pertinent Biblical data in developing scientific hypotheses leads to bad science. Humility, diligence, and disciplined reading are needed if we are to get at the truth. Truth is not as self-evident as we imagine. It often expresses itself in quirky and paradoxical ways (as G.K. Chesterton brilliantly reminds us). The search for truth requires looking at the big picture as well as the smallest, seemingly insignificant details.

Related reading: Science and Miracles; The Relationship of Science and Faith; Christians in Science and Math

The American Scientific Affiliation: A Personal Note

Alice C. Linsley


I encourage my fellow Christian Anthropologists to join the American Scientific Affiliation, a network of Christians in the sciences. Members united on these principles:

— adherence to orthodox Christianity, as defined by the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, which can be read in full here.

— a commitment to mainstream science, that is, any subject on which there is a clear scientific consensus.

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was founded in 1941 as an international network of Christians in the sciences. As scientists, ASA members take part in humanity’s exploration of nature, its laws, and how it works. As Christians, we want to know all that it is possible to know about how the universe operates, how it came into being, and why it exists.

ASA's sister organizations are the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation and Christians in Science in the UK. These frequently partner with the ASA to sponsor events and scholarly work.

A Personal Note

Over the years ASA members have influenced me in significant ways. I would like to mention two in particular: Ralph D. Winter (December 8, 1924 – May 20, 2009) and Dr. Eugene A. Nida (November 11, 1914 – August 25, 2011).

In 2005, Ralph Winter was named by Time magazine as one of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. He was an outstanding advocate for pioneer outreach among unreached people groups.His 1974 presentation at the Congress for World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland - an event organized by American evangelist Billy Graham - was a watershed moment for global mission.

Dr. Winter held degrees from the California Institute of Technology, Cornell, Princeton and Columbia.

Ralph D. Winter

Founder of the U.S. Center for World Mission 

I was blessed to have been able to work with him on two occasions as an advance person for his speaking engagements in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Dr. Eugene A. Nida

Eugene A. Nida directed American Bible Society translations from 1946-1984 and is recognized as one of the foremost linguists and translation theorists of the 20th century.

Nida earned a Bachelor’s degree in 1936 from the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1941 he began a PhD in Linguistics at the University of Michigan and completed it in two years. His dissertation, A Synopsis of English Syntax, was the first full-scale analysis of a major language according to the "immediate-constituent" theory. His most notable contribution to translation theory is Dynamic Equivalence, also known as Functional Equivalence. For more information, see "Dynamic and formal equivalence." Nida also developed the "componential-analysis" technique, which split words into their components to help determine equivalence in translation.

I have applied Nida's technique very successfully in my own research as a Biblical anthropologist.

Another member of ASA who influenced my life is Dr. Vernon Gross. He led my parents to faith in Christ while I was a child. That dramatically changed the course of their lives and mine.

Consider Joining ASA

The cooperation of scientists of Christian faith is more important than ever. Our understanding of the creation and of human existence is attacked daily by atheists who claim the full authority of science. We must speak convincingly of the truth of God, the Creator, and the complexity of the Divine plan for the world; a plan about which the sciences usually whisper and sometimes shout.

Please consider joining the American Scientific Affiliation or one of our sister affiliates. Membership information is here.

Related reading:  The Problem with Gould's NOMA; Kansas Bill Calling for Objectivity in Science Education Fails; Today's Savage Mind; Scientists Against Scientism; When is the Evidence Sufficient?; Who Laid the Foundations of Science?

Is Biblical Anthropology an Oxymoron?

Alice C. Linsley

The Bible contains 66 canonical books. These books include sacred music, history, genealogy, legend and myth; all of particular interest to cultural anthropologists. So why the prejudice against biblical anthropology?

Some anthropologists regard the words Bible and Anthropology as an oxymoron (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharply dull"). Why would a volume of poetry, prayers, oracles, sacred centers and curses, etc. stand as a contradiction to the discipline of Anthropology? Cultural anthropologists investigate such things when it comes to shamans, native healers and griots. Why not also investigate the sacred world of Afro-Asiatic ruler-priests and their Arab and Jewish descendents?

Here is what some people have to say on this topic. I'd be interested in readers' opinions on this question. Please leave a comment.

Michael F: Science and beliefs do not mix.

Alice L: Science begins in belief. One must believe something to even begin to think scientifically.

Gioiello: Bible and theology are not the enemy of the biological evolution; they are superfluous.

Alice L: That's the sort of caustic remark one reads at science sites "where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the 'skeptical community' go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science? " -- Virginia Heffernan, The NYT Magazine

Susan B: There is a chasm between science and religion that needs to be bridged before our understanding of the human condition can be fully formed.

Alice L: I agree, and biblical anthropology, biblical archaeology, linguistics, and migration studies are the disciplines that must close the gap. Biblical anthropology, like biblical archaeology, uses the Bible as a resource in advancing knowledge of the ancient Near Eastern and ancient African peoples and cultures. Both seek data and material evidence, only of a different kind. The two disciplines work hand-in-hand.

Elsbeth T: An anthropologist is always seeking data. Perhaps this is the key to finding a common ground between the theologian and the anthropologist. Both are looking for evidence (data) to confirm truths (conclusions). I think that using a scientific methodology can be beneficial to all sides of the conversation.

Susan B: If the study of biblical humanity is to be undertaken then science and religion are going to have to "mix it up". I see nothing wrong with stating our personal beliefs. They are conclusions reached through research and evidence no different than an atheist declaring the fact that there is no god. Science does not have the ability to definitively prove this theory one way or the other and does not take a position. That doesn't stop popular scientists and other vocal critics from suggesting we would be better off without a "belief" system. But before religion is relegated to the trash heap of human progress, don't you think it would be a good idea to see what selective benefit it afforded us?

Hope R: Throughout history skeptics in the field of anthropology have denied the existence of many cities and events described in the Bible, only to have them discovered, uncovered, and confirmed by people in their own field. To quote Bill Boyd, "Faith goes beyond the evidence, but not against it."

Alice L:  But there is a bias against faith-talk in the scientific and academic communities, often even open hostility. I've experienced it. My research has been called a "mixture of faith and reason" which was meant as a slight, but which some might take as a compliment.  Still, you have to wonder about the dismissal of belief or faith. Every scientist operates on belief and faith of some kind, if nothing else than the faith that the laws of physics will be the same tonight as they were this morning.

Beside an anti-faith and anti-Bible bias, there is ignorance of the Bible and the usefulness of biblical data in making connections. Or the problem is unexamined assumptions about what the Bible says, often on the part of people who have never read the Bible. For the most part, Americans are biblically illiterate. Even church-goers according to Gary Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College (Illinois). Burge is astonished by the ignorance of the Bible among the students who come to Wheaton from "Bible-believing" churches. He says, “If it is true that biblical illiteracy is commonplace in secular culture at large, there is ample evidence that points to similar trends in our churches."

Susan B: How very disappointing that Biblical Anthropology is not an accepted scientific field of study! I have been knocking at that door for many years but have been either ignored or belittled. Biblical anthropology is my passion but, unfortunately, not my career path. Until a few days ago, I didn't know we were allowed to connect those two words together.

Marty P: Biblical anthropologists start out by ignoring existing data or by assuming they are the first scholars in history to pay attention to such things as locations and genealogies! I agree with the atheists to the extent that the Mesopotamian myths are remarkably similar to the stories in Genesis 1-11. The parallels cannot be denied. I don't think Genesis is derived from those myths, but contains parallel accounts of the same historical events.

Alice L: That is an example of how a false assumption can cause confusion. Close analysis of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis Flood narrative reveals that they are not similar in any detail except that both have a hero who overcomes the chaos. The Genesis creation and flood stories find their closest parallel in African narratives. The details are sometimes startling! The motifs of the tree of life, the serpent, the first parents, God walking on earth - all these originate in Africa and spread across the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. But now we have to ask: are we leaving science when we compare and contrast legends, narratives and myths? Or is comparative mythology simply another tool in the anthropologist's tool box? Can any science make progress without drawing on other disciplines?

Marty P: Interdisciplinary studies have long been conducted into the engrossing and popular topic of Middle East history. Christians, Jews, Arabs, Persians (Iranians) and secular scholars are all intensely interested in this part of the world. Scholars are so interested in all aspects of research that some of the early Middle East history experts found themselves trying to master all related scholarly disciplines. Consider, for example, Professor William Albright, described as follows:

"The fields of scholarly research that Albright controlled were vast and included archaeology, Semitic linguistics (including all branches of the great family of languages, especially the numerous dialects of Northwest Semitic, but not neglecting Akkadian and Arabic), epigraphy, orthography, ancient history, chronology, historical topography, mythology—in short, all facets of ancient Near Eastern civilization from the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500 BCE ) through the Greco-Roman period."

Froilan S: Or Noel Freedman, a Jewish Bible scholar and well known in biblical archaeology. He says there’s a difference between the Jewish understanding of Genesis and the Christian understanding of Genesis. In the Jewish perspective Genesis is all about how the Israelites lost the land, lost the temple, and how they were in exile. Genesis is all about the story of Israel and God’s covenant with the Israelites. Genesis can only be interpreted by way of allegory, not by way of history. What’s your opinion?

Alice L: Later in his life, David Noel Freedman admitted that his allegorical scheme didn’t work perfectly. He and William Albright contributed greatly to the world’s understanding of biblical texts. They were masters in their fields but also willing to admit that not all the evidence aligned with their theories. Freedman once said: “The Hebrew Bible is the one artifact from antiquity that not only maintained its integrity but continues to have a vital, powerful effect thousands of years later.”

In the end, the Bible is as reliable and useful a resource for anthropologists as it is for Bible scholars and biblical archaeologists. But we have to keep an open mind.

Susan B: Here’s a case in point: Cyperus Esculentus is a C4 sedge and Ardi was found to have traces in molars (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.anthropology.paleo/2006-11/...). Chufa (Cyperus E) is a rhizome with underground storage units with protein levels equal to chimp food and much less fiber content than that consumed by chimps (http://books.google.com/books?id=vhoRdbTrjc8C&pg=PA573&lpg=...). Also, Ardi was found with many pig bones and pigs are tuber feeders. Whether Ardi consumed the pigs or not is irrelevant to the point that pigs were able to find food.

It just seems to me that chufa is a primary candidate for Paleolithic food source shared by apes, proto-humans and humans alike. Why discount it simply because it appears in the Bible? Instead of looking in remote China for the source of C4 sedge why don't they look in front of their noses? Pardon the sarcasm. C4 sedge grows in swampy areas much like rice. It is one of the oldest domesticated plant species if not the absolute oldest.

Alice L: And it grew all over the swampy grasslands of west central Africa before the Sahara started to dry out. That’s another example of how European and American researchers tend to ignore Africa when making connections. Even "Bible-believers" ignore pertinent data, such as the fact that one of Abraham's ancestors was Nimrod, the son of Kush. Kush is the ancient name for the eastern part of modern Sudan around the Upper Nile. It also designates a number of distinct people groups, such as red and black Nubians and Ainu.

I’m reminded of how anthropologists have ignored Thomas Strasser’s work on Crete. He and his team have discovered hundreds of stone hand axes dating to 130,000 years and they are identical to hand axes fashioned in Africa about 800,000 years ago. He believes that ancient Africans used rafts or other seagoing vessels to cross from northern Africa to Europe and the Near East via larger islands in the Mediterranean. This is what the data in Genesis indicates: that Abraham's ancestors came out of Africa and were great explorers and kingdom builders. Nimrod, who was from Kush (ancient Sudan and Upper Nile) left Africa and built a kingdom for himself in Mesopotamia though he lived much later than Strasser’s seafaring explorers. Although in the Bible we first meet Abraham in Ur, his ancestors came out of Africa. Biblical anthropology can help us reconstruct the African cultural context of Abraham's ancestors. In fact, it may be the best science to undertake that task.

Related reading: The African Cultural Context of Genesis 1-11; Biblical Anthropology is Science; Talking on Facebook about Biblical Anthropology; Using the Bible to Test Hypotheses; What Does a Biblical Anthropologist Do?; Africa is Archaeologically Rich; Biblical Anthropology and the Question of Common Ancestry