Jennifer Wiseman on “Science as an Instrument of Worship”

February 7, 2010
Category: Guest Features

Jennifer Wiseman on “Science as an Instrument of Worship”

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Today's entry was written by Kathryn T. Applegate. Kathryn T. Applegate is a doctoral candidate in computational cell biology at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif. At Scripps, she has developed computer vision software tools for analyzing movies of living cells taken under the microscope. She and others are applying these software tools to better understand how tumor cells migrate and blood vessels form.

Beginning today and each Sunday hereafter, BioLogos will have a worship-oriented blog. Today's post summarizes a just-posted BioLogos paper by astronomer Dr. Jennifer Wiseman.

In most evangelical churches today, God receives regular praise for his work in Creation. We ascribe the grandeur of the night sky or the majesty of mountains to God’s handiwork, and rightly so. But how often are recent scientific discoveries used to stir us up to worship, and to what extent do they inform our theology and stewardship? In her recent white paper, “Science as an Instrument of Worship,” Jennifer Wiseman makes a powerful case that modern science can and should be a means to these valuable ends.

First, Wiseman points out that the Church has largely failed to stay informed and make use of modern scientific knowledge. She points to four impediments the Church faces in incorporating science into worship: ignorance, distraction, controversy, and uncertainty. The first, ignorance, is not specific to believers; scientific comprehension is not a high priority in American culture today, and this gets reflected in the kinds of things we do or don’t talk about in church. Distraction is also endemic in modern culture. Packed schedules, information overload, and an entertainment-driven society do not lend themselves to quiet contemplation and learning. Controversy over science, as readers of this blog well know, arises from the many opposing voices in the public square and from the pervasive belief that accepting science means compromising one’s belief in the Bible.

Wiseman doesn’t leave us with the problems, though: she commends four specific ways in which science can magnify our worship and equip the Church in practical ways. First, from a perspective of faith, studying the details and mechanisms of nature can reveal the character of God more clearly. We can see God’s faithfulness, for instance, in considering the regularity of natural processes and the fine tuning of our universe. Second, science informs how we can be better stewards of our world and one another. Not only does scientific comprehension shape the way we live, work, and serve, but it guides our decisions about how new technologies should be used. Third, understanding the natural world gives us a profoundly expanded view of Jesus Christ as Lord, when we consider that he is Lord of all space and time—over billions of galaxies and billions of years. He is quite a King indeed! Finally, science can instruct us about what it means to be human and how we are to relate to all other living things. Research has revealed many fascinating similarities between humans and other species, and rather than threatening our uniqueness or status before God, these discoveries tell us how much God loves and cares for everything he has made. That God has entrusted us to do the same should fill us with a deep and humble sense of responsibility.

It was thrilling to hear Wiseman present this white paper last November at the BioLogos Workshop in New York City. There was a palpable sense of worshipful wonder in the room as Wiseman described star formation, the unfathomable scope of the universe, and her own research in searching for planets like ours in other solar systems. I hope you too will be driven to worship and contemplation as you read this paper. For discussion, how can we combat the ignorance, distraction, controversy, and uncertainty that impede the Church from fully embracing science? What are some practical ways the Church can make use of science as an instrument of worship?

Filed Under:
science, religion, astronomy, heavens, stars, galaxies, beauty, wonder, God, harmony, Jennifer Wiseman, worship, Christ, Christianity

Comments (36)

Share |

  1. Daniel Mann - #4078

    February 8th 2010

    Kathryn (and Jennifer),

    You state, “Controversy over science, as readers of this blog well know, arises from the many opposing voices in the public square and from the pervasive belief that accepting science means compromising one’s belief in the Bible.”

    That there is a controversy is patently obvious to anyone who reads BioLogos. However, you make the church sound far more reactionary and idiotic than it is by stating that the controversy is between the church and science.

    While I don’t know any Christians who oppose science, I know many who oppose macro-evolution, and for respectable reasons. And there are some interesting blogs to this effect – “Darwins God,” “Uncommon Descent”…  Referring to them as “ignorant” is both condescending and needlessly provocative.

    Nevertheless, you are right about science and worship. Science stretches our vision, and so, in as far as the eye provides material for worship, so too science! However, the theory of evolution replaces the elegant Genesis account with material unworthy of worship – natural selection, random mutation, and the survival of the fittest – not my idea of Sunday morning contemplation!

  2. Charlie - #4083

    February 8th 2010

    Daniel Mann,

    By rejecting a specific scientific conclusion, one is rejecting the scientific method of determining fact.  This is how opposing evolution is also opposing science.

  3. Daniel Mann - #4089

    February 8th 2010

    Charlie,

    Please clarify! I don’t see how rejecting one theory represents rejecting science!

  4. Brian - #4090

    February 8th 2010

    Like so many other posts at Biologos, I find some of Ms Applegate’s statements to be at a disappointingly high level.  For example: 

    “The first, ignorance, is not specific to believers; scientific comprehension is not a high priority in American culture today, and this gets reflected in the kinds of things we do or don’t talk about in church.”

    I wonder if she would be willing to provide us with 3-4 specific examples of recent scientific discoveries of which we are ignorant.  How is this ignorance reflected in the kinds of things we talk about?  How exactly does she see being better informed in these areas as stirring us to worship, or informing our ideas of stewardship?

  5. Kendalf - #4091

    February 8th 2010

    Charlie, let’s rephrase your statement:

    “By rejecting a specific biblical conclusion, one is rejecting the hermeneutical method of determining fact.  This is how opposing creation in 6 literal 24 hour days is also opposing Scripture.”

    Would you consider that a valid statement? I would assume not. The issue here is not rejecting science or rejecting Scripture; I believe that for the most part those on the different sides of the debate accept God’s revelation through Scripture and nature to be good. What is disagreed upon and where the conflict comes is in the specific interpretations of the words of Scripture and the observations of nature.

    I would agree with Daniel that the evidence for a Darwinian “molecules to man” evolutionary process are not so clear-cut that other interpretations are unreasonable, in the same way that the text of Genesis is not so definitive that a non-literal reading of the “days” of Genesis 1 is out of the question.

  6. Kendalf - #4093

    February 8th 2010

    Let me also add that I second Daniel’s comment that the controversy is not between the church and science. I don’t hear many church people arguing against physics or chemistry, or technological advances that have come from science, or how the organs and systems within living things work. The main issue of controversy is over a specific (albeit overarching) aspect of biology. But coming from a physics person, to say that evolution is the sum of science, such that the rejection of evolution is the rejection of science, does injustice to the scope of scientific endeavor.

  7. Gregory Arago - #4095

    February 8th 2010

    Back to speaking about ‘the scientific method’ as if there were *only one* and not many methods, right Charlie ; - )

    @ Kendalf:
    you wrote: “I don’t hear many church people arguing against physics or chemistry, or technological advances that have come from science, or how the organs and systems within living things work.”

    If one limits the meaning of ‘science’ to classical triad of ‘physics, chemistry & biology’ then they miss out on a whole slew of other sciences.

    There certainly *are* today ‘many church people’ arguing about ecology & ‘climate science’ & about biotech ethics.

    As an ‘astronomer’ Wiseman is actually quite safe & protected. If she started dirtying her hands in sciences such as anthropology (e.g. physical or cultural) or psychology, or the behavior of living organisms, then her ‘faith in science’ would face more of a lithmus test. Far more astronomers & physicists are people of faith today than anthropologists or psychologists.

    Does anyone at BioLogos wonder why?

  8. Charlie - #4102

    February 8th 2010

    All I am saying is that if one rejects evolution regardless of the large amounts of evidence supporting it, then one is rejecting the process of coming to a conclusion based on evidence.  Call it science or not.

  9. John VanZwieten - #4107

    February 8th 2010

    For an excellent example of science as an instrument of worship, I recommend Rob Bell’s “Everything is Spiritual.”  Whether or not all the science and theology in it is correct, the science presented is definitely directed toward the purpose of worshipping the creator-God.

  10. Daniel Mann - #4144

    February 9th 2010

    Charlie (and Kendalf),

    Many people reject macro-evolution without rejecting the basics of the scientific process – observation, quantification, and replication. For example, many cite the problem with the fossil record.

    “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.” (David Raup)

    “We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not…I tried in vain to document examples of the kind of slow directional change we all thought ought to be there every since Darwin told us that natural selection should leave precisely such a tell-tale signal…I found instead that once species appear in the fossil record they tend not to change very much at all. Species remain imperturbably, implacably resistant to change as a matter of course – often for millions of years.” (Niles Eldridge)

  11. Daniel Mann - #4145

    February 9th 2010

    Charlie (and Kendalf),

    Continued—

    Evolutionists are now trying to reconstruct Darwin’s “tree” based upon molecular or genetic inter-phyla similarities. However, their “tree” remains a disheveled mess according to the NEW SCIENTIST:

    “Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as in morphology…Congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within he last couple of decades, the situation is little better.”

    Of course, many evolutionists will disagree with these conclusions. However, I just cite the above evolutionists to prove that evolution isn’t close to a slam-dunk.

  12. beaglelady - #4150

    February 9th 2010

    Nice quote mining there, Daniel. Are we trying to pretend that Niles Eldredge doesn’t accept evolutionary theory?

  13. Charlie - #4153

    February 9th 2010

    Daniel Mann,

    Ignoring the evolutionary evidence is like ignoring archeological evidence.  How do we know about many aspects of ancient egyptian culture, even though we weren’t there to see it?  Same with saying the sun is made mostly of hydrogen and helium.  All of our data to support this claim is indirect (light wavelengths); we’re not taking samples of the sun.  In many ways, evolution is supported better than these two examples because we have directly observed and actually created in some instances “microevolution”.  Is it really that big of a stretch to see how micro can lead to macro?

    As far as fossils and genetics, please give me one example that contradicts evolution.

  14. Daniel Mann - #4156

    February 9th 2010

    Charlie,

    You wrote, “Is it really that big of a stretch to see how micro can lead to macro?”

    I think it is, and many scientists would agree. How about the Cambrian explosion:

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of palaeontology…The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with the idea that they gradually evolved:

    1.  Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear…
    2.  Sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Stephen Jay Gould)

    The proof just doesn’t seem to be there.

    BeagleLady,

    I’m glad you’re still a fan! No, I’m not saying that he isn’t an evolutionist, but he’s willing to admit that there are serious problems.

  15. Kendalf - #4157

    February 9th 2010

    Gregory Arago wrote: “If one limits the meaning of ‘science’ to classical triad of ‘physics, chemistry & biology’ then they miss out on a whole slew of other sciences.”

    Gregory, I think we see things similarly, although perhaps I didn’t convey my thoughts clearly. I didn’t mean to limit science to just the classical triad; I was just citing general examples.

    The point that I was making was that Wiseman—and Applegate’s summary—uses too broad of a brush in painting the conflict as between the church and science. The combined areas of science that are “rejected” by even the most science-phobic Christians is far smaller than the full scope of science, and thus to say that the church in general is opposed to science in general does injustice to both the church and science.

    That being said, after reading Wiseman’s paper I am in agreement with the intent of her essay, even though I may disagree on some of the specifics.

  16. beaglelady - #4159

    February 9th 2010

    I’m glad you’re still a fan! No, I’m not saying that he isn’t an evolutionist, but he’s willing to admit that there are serious problems.

    Not so.  Scientists disagree about how evolution occurs, but not that it occurs.  Eldredge is a proponent of punctuated equilibrium.  Besides, he’s published many books on evolutionary theory, including one called The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism.
    Now, does that really sound to you as though he thinks there are serious problems with evolutionary theory?  Please, do tell!

  17. Daniel Mann - #4173

    February 9th 2010

    BL,

    Isn’t it possible that he can hold to evolution, and yet have the honesty to acknowledge that it has significant challenges/problems?

  18. Charlie - #4176

    February 9th 2010

    The reason people have a problem with evolution is that it is not 100% proven, which is what makes it a theory.  Please give me ANY example in nature that is 100% proven!!!  The earth revolving around the sun is just a theory (a theory that is strongly supported by a lot of evidence).  DNA being the fundamental genetic code is just a theory (another theory well supported by evidence).

  19. Gregory Arago - #4181

    February 9th 2010

    What makes you think that ‘evolutionary theory’ is *only* about ‘nature’, Charlie?

    You continue, unfortunately in the face of much contrary evidence, to entertain an illusion. You think, first, that there is *ONLY ONE* so-called ‘scientific method.’ This is absolutely & unequivocally *FALSE*. If you’ve got *anything* to ‘prove’ otherwise, let’s have it.

    Second, you hide behind a screen of ‘ideological naturalism’ to *assume* that the only *valid* knowledge is ‘scientific’ knowledge. “Oh ye, of little faith.”

    Kendalf has seen and heard well what I am expressing. I agree with him. Yes, it is possible to be a ‘scientist’ & a person who is ‘religious’ (whatever that means today), who has ‘faith’. Even for a 25 yr-old, perhaps especially, there is a ‘spiritual’ dimension that is waiting to be discovered by those who have not closed their minds to *only* material or natural ‘answers.’

    Are you open to such possibilities, Charlie?

  20. beaglelady - #4192

    February 9th 2010

    Isn’t it possible that he can hold to evolution, and yet have the honesty to acknowledge that it has significant challenges/problems?

    No, for him evolution is not a problem. He simply proposes a different mechanism for how it proceeds. Please stop your quote mining.

  21. Gregory Arago - #4194

    February 9th 2010

    How do you deal with the post-Darwinian Lynn Margulis, and her ‘different mechanism,’ beaglelady? Are you educated enough in biology or genetics to contend with her?

  22. beaglelady - #4197

    February 9th 2010

    I don’t have to know squat about Lynn Margulis to know that Eldredge accepts evolutionary theory.

  23. Charlie - #4204

    February 10th 2010

    Gregory Arago,

    What are the multiple scientific methods? I can only think of one.  I’d really be interested to know

  24. Gregory Arago - #4213

    February 10th 2010

    You seem to think there is *only one* so-called ‘evolutionary theory,’ beaglelady. That is untrue.

    Which science? Whose science?

    RC Pope John Paul II: “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.”

    E. Mayr: “Evolution shows so many facets that it looks alike to no two persons.”

    L. Margulis thinks there are *some* things wrong with *some* people’s views of ‘evolutionary theories’.

    Even Wiki: “Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution.”

    Why do you sometimes defend ‘evolution’ as if it were a universal theory?

    You appear to support ‘evolution’ as a worldview, beaglelady. Yet you speak as religious, which makes it confusing.

  25. Gregory Arago - #4214

    February 10th 2010

    What can I say, Charlie? Go do some reading. Google “multiple scientific methods”. Pick up some philosophy of science books at the library.

    Same goes for the meaning of ‘scientism.’

    There’s lots out there to discover! Which is why learning and living is, in Georg Simmel’s expression, an ‘adventure.’

    http://condor.depaul.edu/~dweinste/theory/adventure.html

  26. Charlie - #4223

    February 10th 2010

    3 similar definitions from dictionary.com

    Scientific method:

    a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

    The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

    An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.

    These are basically the same thing.  Can you give me a reliable source of where you found the “multiple scientific methods”?

  27. Charlie - #4224

    February 10th 2010

    Is this your definition of scientism?

    scientism from dictionary.com

    “The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.”

    Of course science isn’t applicable in all fields of inquiry, not all fields are scientific.  Religion is one of them.

  28. beaglelady - #4226

    February 10th 2010

    Gregory,

    Mainstream scientists speak of evolutionary theory. They argue about different aspects of it but still speak of it as evolutionary theory.  For example, look at this book at amazon.com by Stephen Jay Gould.  He was one of the proponents of Punk Eek (along with Niles Eldredge) but he still speaks of evolutionary theory. 

    There are, to be sure, other theories of evolution suck as Lamarck’s, but when scientists speak of plain evolutionary theory in normal usage they mean Darwinian evolutionary theory.

    So that’s the key here, discerning and comprehending what people normally mean when they speak of something.

  29. beaglelady - #4227

    February 10th 2010

    oops I mean “such as Lamarcks” above.

  30. Gregory Arago - #4234

    February 10th 2010

    Kendalf wrote:
    “The point that I was making was that Wiseman—and Applegate’s summary—uses too broad of a brush in painting the conflict as between the church and science. The combined areas of science that are “rejected” by even the most science-phobic Christians is far smaller than the full scope of science, and thus to say that the church in general is opposed to science in general does injustice to both the church and science.”

    Yes, we are on the same page here.

    It would be different perhaps if Applegate &/or Wiseman were speaking from within the fold of Roman Catholic Christianity or Anglican Christianity, which have their fair share of scientists & scholars. To suggest that there is a ‘tension’ between ‘evangelical Christianity,’ as demonstrated by its American advocates & ‘science,’ is a different story.

    Would it be inappropriate to suggest that ‘evangelicals’ are more ‘science-phobic’ than other Christians? If so, why?

  31. Gregory Arago - #4239

    February 10th 2010

    beaglelady,

    it seems you don’t want to address my questions, so there is no dialogue between us.

    You idealize “plain evolutionary theory in normal usage,” but this simply doesn’t exist.

    Which evolutionary theory? Whose evolutionary theory?

    You pretend that Eldridge doesn’t criticize some evolutionary theories. Evolution is ONE, not many, right?

    Sometimes when you say ‘evolution’ you just mean ‘natural history’. When Daniel called you out that ‘mechanisms’ of eVo are disputed, you dodged an answer.

    A few weeks ago when I asked you to ‘limit evolution’ you expressed confusion that such a question could even rationally be asked. beaglelady, it can and should be asked.

    Can *universal evolutionism* be ‘an instrument of worship’? Is it churchable? Personally, I don’t think so.

  32. beaglelady - #4352

    February 12th 2010

    So now BioLogos is going to remove my comments?  I did answer Daniel’s question.  Read this thread and you’ll see, unless you’ve had that removed also.  Your questions make no sense to me.  Now I have a question for you:

    Is it larger than a breadbox?

  33. Peter Hoffman - #4367

    February 12th 2010

    Instead of all this (lazy) general blather, if you guys want to argue about what is really bothering the evangelical opponents of evolutionary biological science, why not get down to something completely specific (and which I venture to guess that over 99% of tenured biology professors in research universities of North America and Europe would strongly agree with as being virtually certain):

    There existed in the distant past an individual mammal
    (1) whom no one would take to be even remotely human, and
    (2) who is a direct ancestor of every human alive today.

    To those with any serious doubt about this proposition, here is some recommended reading:

    Seven million years: The story of human evolution—-Douglas Palmer (2005)

    The Greatest Sow on Earth—-Richard Dawkins (2009)

    Breaking the Spell—-Daniel C. Dennett (2006)

    Read with an open mind, the latter should disabuse your correspondent
    of his silly statement that “... not all fields are scientific. Religion is one of them.”

    Peter

  34. Peter Hoffman - #4368

    February 12th 2010

    Oops!  The Greatest Show,  not Sow,  but that makes a good joke.

    Peter

  35. John Mulholland - #4415

    February 13th 2010

    Is it possible that C.P.Snow’s Rede lectures of 1959 and subsequent little book,  The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution is relevant to this discussion?  Years ago, he argued in his lectures in the heart of academic England at Oxford University, that humanists knew almost nothing of the sciences, and scientists knew almost nothing of the humanities.  The original edition of his book can be read online and downloaded at the following website.
      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/snow_1959.pdf

    Is it possible that what we are wrestling with here is part of that larger problem?

  36. Gregory Arago - #4481

    February 14th 2010

    Hi John,

    That’s a good point imo. But I’m afraid this is not on most people’s radars today in ‘science and religion’ discourse.

    Dr. K. Giberson is more in-tune with this than many others and it would be interesting for him to address this somewhere on the BioLogos site.

    The Edge or ‘Third Culture’ movement is indeed part of the ‘culture war’ in America over the meanings of ‘science, philosophy and religion’. There, people are involving humanities and philosophy, in addition to the significantly more limited dichotomy of ‘science and religion.’

    The point I made re: Wiseman being ‘safer’ because she is an astronomer speaks to what you say.

    Imo, the topic BioLogos is raising *badly* needs humanitarian contributions, especially because it is dealing with ‘language,’ in the sense of “The Language of God.” Is there any more central text for BioLogos? How can people understand ‘language’ *without* the ‘science’ of ‘philology’ and also the love of wisdom, philosophy?

    • Add Your Comment