Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 13, 2012

Home > 2009 > March (Web-only)Christianity Today, March (Web-only), 2009
Where We Stand
Science at Its Best
President Obama wants to 'restore science to its rightful place.' So do we.




Science is one of God's great gifts. So, it struck a positive chord with many Americans when Barack Obama said in his inauguration speech, "We will restore science to its rightful place."

Over the past month, the "rightful place" of science and its relationship to religion and ethics has been in the news. Old debates over evolution flared up on Charles Darwin's birthday, in-vitro fertilization provoked death threats against Nadya Suleman, the new mother of octuplets, and politicians debated how drug-effectiveness research affects patients. And today, as Obama changes the federal government's policy on taxpayer funding of embryonic research (something this magazine strongly opposes), articles pitting science against religion are legion.

Science is the most helpful to society — or, in Obama's words, "in its rightful place" — when it is shaped by ethics and responsive to criticism. Then it's shaped by the higher goal of human dignity, and, from the Christian perspective, gives glory to God.

Evangelicals often find themselves questioning majority opinion on current scientific issues, such as embryonic stem-cell research (40 percent of evangelicals oppose it, according to ABC News/Beliefnet), evolution (65 percent of evangelicals disbelieve it, according to Pew Research Center), and global warming (31 percent of evangelicals remain unconvinced that the earth's temperature has been rising, according to Pew). This questioning is grounded sometimes in fact and sometimes in worldview. It's the worldview that makes many nervous. National Public Radio science reporter Robert Krulwich, like many, believes religion and science are in a Darwinian struggle. In a speech he called "Tell Me A Story," he says, "Science stories … have to compete with other stories about how the universe works, and how it came to be. And some of those other stories — Bible stories, movie stories, myths — can be very beautiful and very compelling. But to protect science and scientists — and this is not a gentle competition — you've got to get in there and tell your version of how things are, and why things came to be."

But even Krulwich agrees that science is served when we question. Someone needs to be asking, "Are you sure?" "How do you know?" even of well-established beliefs.

Science and technology give us power over our world and our bodies, and power is never value-free. Politicians, who are stewards of power, like to criticize one another for "politicizing science," but what they usually are concerned about are others' policies on scientific issues.

The rhetoric suggests that everyone agrees that science should be free of political agendas. There is no better way of doing that, and thus promoting human dignity through science, than encouraging questions and ethical debate. We're all in it together — creationists and evolutionists, research scientists and ethicists, doctors and patients with the most heart-rending diseases. Thus, the rightful place of science in society is one in which we all talk, question, and debate, together seeking the common good.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 15 comments

Phaedrus

March 11, 2009  9:28am

The author seems to miss an important aspect of science - prediction and validation. Science does more than tell a story, it makes predictions that can be verified. After many years of validation, the scientific story becomes provisionally accepted and new work can be built upon it. If/When new evidence arises, old stories are revisited and those that hold up are strengthened and those that are contradicted are modified.

Dave

March 10, 2009  11:49pm

Independant in Florida says read our Bibles. Maybe if Christians did read their Bibles, there wouldn't be abortion, gay marriage and a Godless nation that is ripping saprt at the seams. To insinuate that you can read the Bible and conclude that the issues listed above are something God will look on kindly indicates you haven't read your own Bible. Maybe you might want to do so before you conclude others don't.

Gregory Peterson

March 10, 2009  8:27pm

It's kind of difficult to take disbelievers of evolution seriously. Have they eyes, but cannot see? Evolution is kind of difficult to miss, once it's been pointed out to you...fun and useful as well. Yet, myself, scientist colleagues and relatives have been accused of lying, scams, deceit, hating God, communism, racism, stupidity, immorality of all kinds, the Dread Scott decision, Nazism, the Holocaust, Illuminati conspiracies...blamed for most everything that's gone wrong, real and imagined, in the world since before Darwin even published his theory of natural selection, while evangelicals are somehow as blameless and innocent as lambs, and twice as omniscient as God. Apparently, it was only evolutionists that lived in the Jim Crow Bible Belt. Just look at CT's coverage of Stem Cells..."But for a moment, imagine the morally tone-deaf researcher about to dismember a living human embryo..." How did the editor sleep at night after writing that? Shame on him or her.

dproffitt

March 10, 2009  8:09pm

After Obama's embracing of all things liberal particularly the death culture, I do hope is he completely understood by all who causally voted for him. Voters have placed him in a position to bring further shame on this country. I do hope he fails and is replaced in the next election in 4 years, it will take decades to overcome his polices that he has done in less than 2 months.

Thomas

March 10, 2009  5:13pm

Andrew, pro-life though we are, do you really see no difference between the murder of an adult human with all the incumbent ties of love and family, and the 'death' of a discarded embryo? You must see a difference. It should be possible to express our strong feelings about the moral hazard of destroying embryos without stretching for such extreme analogies. On the extremes, such analogies breakdown and make our case seem weak and illogical. This alienates thoughtful people who are undecided on these issues. Don't you think?

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper

Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Kyria.com
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com