Science is Not the Study of General Revelation

In 1993, Dr. N.H. Gootjes, then professor at the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches, published a Clarion article entitled, “What does God reveal in the Grand Canyon?” You can find the article, and my Letter to the Editor, and his response, here.

This is an interesting throwback to my graduate student days, when I was an enthusiastic young-earth creationist wishing to share with readers of Reformed Perspective how the reigning paradigms of modern science were crumbling in light of recent discoveries (e.g. discoveries of stars older than the universe; see my piece “Is the Universe ‘Too Young’?”, Reformed Perspective, June 1993, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 21-2). After this exchange between Dr. Gootjes and myself in the pages of Clarion, I had coffee with him on a visit of his to BC. I tried to clarify my points of agreement with him and push back a bit on the second-last sentence of his response to me: “For this reason I cannot agree that Christian scientists ought to share what they have found in creation about God (see my second point). Let them, however, by all means share what they have found in creation about God’s world (my first point).”

I actually agree that science is not the study of general revelation; I am thankful for Dr. Gootjes’s corrective to that aspect of what I thought 22 years ago. And I am glad Dr. Gootjes encouraged us to share what we find about God’s world (like the multiple independent converging lines of evidence that provide significant support to the current theories of cosmology, geology, meteorology, embryology, biology, more support than I thought in 1993).

But I still also believe that science can deepen our appreciation of some of God’s attributes, like his covenant faithfulness. For example, careful studies of light from distant stars indicate to a high degree of precision that the principles of quantum physics and general relativity apply equally well up there in “the heavens” as they do here on earth; God’s omnipresence and his sovereignty and providential care for creation extends to the far reaches of space and beyond. The cosmic vistas of the Hubble space telescope have deepened our sense of our physical and spatial insignificance, enhancing our appreciation of God’s special concern and care for humans beyond what David could in Psalm 8. Our growing understanding of deep time can strengthen our appreciation of God’s goodness, providence, and patience, as we learn about the amazing processes (like the special resonance of beryllium-8 God apparently provided as the way for stars to produce all the carbon atoms in our bodies) that God has directed to prepare a place for us to live. Our examination of the structure and functioning of DNA can deepen our appreciation of God’s wisdom and his meticulous providence. Our study of the relationships between electric and magnetic fields can deepen our appreciation of God’s love of beauty and symmetry. Surely you can think of more examples.I am not saying we learn new specific facts about God, but we can, also through our scientific investigations, more deeply appreciate certain of His qualities.

“Oh Lord my God,

when I, in awesome wonder,

consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,

I see the stars,

I hear the rolling thunder,

Thy power throughout the universe displayed,

Then sings my soul, my Saviour, God, to Thee,

How great Thou art,

How great Thou art.”

So I accept that science is not the study of general revelation, but of the world; after all, general revelation is revelation about God. But science can still give us as believers even more to praise and thank God for, and those of us who “look through the telescope” long to invite others to share in this experience.

Now, there is an interesting converse to this. Special revelation is not about the world, but about God. What God reveals to us in His Word is Himself, with much more specificity [hence: special revelation] than we could possibly find out from just considering the world. The purpose of the Bible is not to teach us cosmology, geology, meteorology, embryology, or biology, but to teach us about God. The Bible is not an encyclopedic answer book to which we can come with all the questions our modern scientific mindset encourages us to ask, like “How old is the universe?”, “What came first, plants or people?”, “Of whom was Cain afraid when God cursed him?”, “Did the layers of the Grand Canyon get deposited by Noah’s flood?”, “When did the previous 117 species of elephants roam the earth?”, “How does fossilization occur?” The Belgic Confession says as much: “Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word as far as is necessary for us in this life, to His glory and our salvation” (Article 2). “We receive all these [canonical] books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith” (Article 5).

Gootjes concluded, “Let them…by all means share what they have found in creation about God’s world.” Scientists who are Christians have the ability and calling, if only we would be invited, to share our personal and communal experiences and observations with other Christians. We are familiar with the methods and results of science. We long to share our joy of discovery and our awe & wonder at what God has made. We can explain the limits of science, identify the non-scientific claims made by outspoken atheist-scientists, and offer correctives to over-zealous and well-intentioned claims of some Christians (which, like those I made myself in the Reformed Perspective article cited above, are all too often misleading and offer false comfort). For this, is the church confident enough in Jesus Christ the only foundation (see I Corinthians 3:11), and in God’s love and providence, His faithfulness and goodness, His truth and mercy, and His infallible Word?