BACK COVER
Are the worlds of science and religion irreconcilable? Has modern science with its theory of evolution disproved the biblical account of the origin of life? If one accepts the biblical account of origins, does one then have to reject science?
Scientist and Christian believer Ariel A. Roth argues that taken together, science and religion give us a more complete and sensible understanding of the world around us, our place in it, and our ultimate meaning and fate.
Roth examines such topics as the evidence for evolution and creation, the Flood, the strengths and limitations of the scientific method, and the reliability of Scripture. He concludes the the biblical model of a recent creation by God leaves fewer unanswered questions than either science's evolutionary model or any view between the two positions, such as progressive creation or theistic evolution.
----------
Besides teaching biology, Ariel Roth has spent 30 years researching areas in which science and religion touch each other and sometimes offer conflicting perspectives. Holding a doctorate in zoology from the University of Michigan, he taught at Andrews and Loma Linda universities and from 1980 to 1994 was director of the Geoscience Research Institute. Roth has also been in the evolution-creation controversy in the United States, testifying before many educational and legal groups, and has conducted numerous geological and paleontological field trips around the world.
THE AUTHOR
Ariel A. Roth was born in Geneva, Switzerland, and grew up in Europe, the Caribbean, and North America. Holding a master's degree in biology and a Ph.D. degree in zoology from the University of Michigan, he has taken additional training in geology, mathematics, and radiation biology at various campuses of the University of California.
Roth has held a number of college and university appointments and is a member of several learned societies. After serving as chairman of the Biology Departments at Andrews University and Loma Linda University, he was director of the Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda, California. For 23 years he has been editor of the journal Origins.
Roth has pursued research in invertebrate zoology and on fossil and living coral reefs in both the Pacific and Caribbean. There he has investigated the effects of light and pigment on the rate of coral reef growth. His research in various aspects of biology has been financed by several United States government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Roth has been active in the evolution-creation controversy in the United States, serving as a consultant or witness to the states of California, Oregon, and Arkansas. He has conducted numerous paleontological and geological field trips in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and North America in areas significant to the creation-evolution controversy. In addition, he has published more than a hundred articles in both scientific and popular journals, and has given many hundreds of lectures throughout the world.
PREFACE
Some consider an attempt to link science and Scripture an impossible task. This book challenges that "impossibility." It attempts to show that the dichotomy between science and Scripture is not what is often surmised and that a reasonable harmony exists between the two.
In the animated discussions about the truthfulness of science and Scripture, too often the focus is on one specialized topic, such as how life could arise by itself or the validity of the record of beginnings found in the Bible. However, the question of origins is comprehensive, dealing with the beginning of nearly everything. A broad question demands a broad base of evaluation. This book attempts to give an introduction to the wider picture. Often we trust the specialized experts who trust other specialized experts, all of whom have formulated their "worldview" on prevailing opinions without having had a chance to evaluate the larger picture that we so frequently take for granted. Too often we draw extended conclusions from a narrow database while being unaware that we are suffering from the bias of exclusion. A sociologist looks at a city from a different perspective than does an architect, yet both see a part of the total picture. This brief survey attempts to "specialize" in the more comprehensive view, evaluating various interpretations based on scientific data and on Scripture. While trying to cover the broad picture, practical constraints have forced me to select a limited number of topics for discussion. I have sought to choose the most important topics — namely, those that present the greatest challenge to Scripture and to science. The great questions of origins are approached from a variety of perspectives. Starting with the history of the conflict between science and religion, the book then considers biological, paleontological, and geological implications. Evaluations of science, of Scripture, and of views intermediate between the creation concept of Scripture and the evolutionary model of science then follow. Although I would have liked to address scores of other topics, alas, one cannot write about everything, and many readers will be grateful that I did not try!
One of the premises of this treatise is that truth ought to make sense. In other words, truth will bear up under investigation; however, that investigation should be comprehensive enough to be meaningful to the questions posed. One of the disappointing aspects of human nature is that more often than many of us are willing to admit, we believe what we want to believe, instead of what the data is saying. This is why it is so important in our search for truth to avoid relying on conjecture and to pay particular attention to the firmest anchor points we can find. As a practicing scientist, I take science extremely seriously. And as one who values meaning and religion, I also take the Bible just as seriously.
Many books have come off the presses recently to challenge creation, evolution, or related views. In this book, where possible, I have attempted a more constructive synthesis. This has been more feasible in the second half of the book. At the same time, I have tried to give special attention to critical evaluation. Most published discussions of this topic ignore geology. I have attempted to fill this gap with considerations from that neglected field.
This book often focuses on the intersection of science and religion. The reader will soon discover several possible uses of general terms, such as science or religion. This can be confusing, and precise understanding is important to the discussion. To clarify terminology, I have often identified specific uses in the text. Especially important are such terms as science, naturalistic science, methodological science, religion, Scripture, and theology. The glossary at the end of this book will define them.
A number of the conclusions I present are not mainline. I invite the reader to evaluate them on the basis of the data, not from preconceived perspectives. We cannot formulate new concepts by simply approving of old ones.
A few chapters (especially 4, 8, 10, and 14) cover rather technical topics. I have tried to simplify them as much as possible, but fear they might still be difficult to understand. They are important, but some readers may find it advantageous to read the conclusions at the end of these chapters and go on to easier topics.
Does this book represent a balanced treatment? Is it unbiased? Unfortunately, the answer in both cases is probably no. I have made special efforts to be fair to the data, paying special attention to the most reliable data, but who can claim complete freedom from bias? When it comes to interpretations of data, I make no claim to have tried to give every view an even voice. This book is not a survey of prevailing opinions. However, in a number of areas, our level of information is so meager compared to what we need for any final conclusions that I present several options to consider.
Whenever I look at a new book, one of the first things I do is glance at the final chapter to determine the author's perspective. Let me spare you that exercise, if you have not already done so. It is my conclusion that much more scientific information corroborates Scripture than most people have generally surmised. While a fair amount of scientific data is interpreted as favoring evolution, the evolutionary worldview is limited and leaves many questions, including the meaning of existence, unanswered. It appears to me that when we consider the total picture, creation explains more than evolution does. Views of origins that attempt to combine parts of creation and evolution (chapter 21) are not very satisfactory. They lack definition as well as scientific or scriptural authentication, or authentication from any other source of information.
I am aware that those whose views differ from mine may find my approach unpleasant. If this is the case, please accept my sincere apologies. I would urge such individuals to continue studying, communicating, and contributing to humanity's total fund of knowledge. We all have much to learn from each other.
