Science and Religion

(Course Code: BID01)

Course Objectives:
1. To understand the Biblical Doctrine of Creation and explore its historical and current
implications for Science, Scientists, and believers.
2. To equip students with the basic knowledge in the field of Science and Religion for
proper pastoral care and outreach.
3. To expose students to emerging areas of interest in the Science and Faith interface.
4. To enable the students to have a critical theological and ethical engagement with
modern science and technology at various levels as part of their Christian vocation in
church and society.
5. To equip the students to grapple with the ethical questions that modern science and
technology poses, and to develop alternative theological and paradoxical perspectives,
drawing from contemporary theoretical formulations and social movements.
6. To help the church to address theologically the ministerial challenges that modern
science and technology unleash, and to motivate the church to witness in the public
sphere, engaging with public policy issues related to science and technology.

Course Outline
UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Nature of Science, Technology, and Religion.
1.2 Analysis of Enlightenment-Induced Scepticism from within Theological Scholarship.
1.3 The Problem with Biblical Literalism: Varieties of Creationism, Old Earth Creationism,
Young Earth Creationism.
1.4 Intelligent Design.
1.5 Examination of the Atheists’ use of Science against faith: Scientism as a worldview.
Readings
Alexander, Denis. Rebuilding the Matrix. Lion Book, 2001.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe without Design. 2006.
Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Derry, Gregory. What Science is and How it Works. Princeton, 1999.
Dusek, Vai. Philosophy of Technology. Blackwell, 2006.

1
Haack, Susan. The Six Signs of Scientism, Unpublished Notes.
Hariri, Noah Yuval, & Seeker, Harvill. Homo Deus, 2017.
McGrath, Alister. Science and Religion: An Introduction. Eerdmans, 2003. (Internet
Archive)
Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism
(Ulysses Press, 2006).
Nelson, Paul. Three Views on Creation or Evolution (ed). IVP, 1999.
Numbers, Ronald. Creationists – From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Harvard,
2006.
Padgett, Alan, Science and the Study of God, Eerdmans, 2003.
Pedersen, Olsen. And Blackwell, Hencricks, A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology
(ed), 2009.
Ratzsch, Del. Science and its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective, IVP
Academic, 2000.
Särukkai, Sundar. What is Science, NBT, 2011.
Sorell, Tom. Scientism, Routledge, 1991.

UNIT 2: Historical Encounters of Science and Christian Faith: Myth and Facts
 Church and advances in medical sciences.
 Flat earth cosmogony.
 Heliocentric Model, and Copernicus, Galileo, and other martyrs of Science.
 Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
 The Christians Roots of Western Science.
 Scientific Method and Astrology.
 Religion and the Rise of Technology.
Readings
 Brooke , John Hedley. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, CUP,
1991.
 Grayling, AC. The Age of Genius; The Seventeenth Century and the Birth of Modern
Mind, Bloomsbury, 2017.
 Hannam, James. God’s Philosophers, Icon Books, 2009.
 Lindberg, David, and Ronald Numbers. God & Nature: Historical Essays on the
Encounter Between Science and Christianity, Ed, UCLA Press, 1992.
 When Science and Christianity Meet, Ed, Univ Chicago Press, 2003.

2
  Mangalwadi, Vishal. The Book That Made Your World, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
2012.
 Nobel, David E. The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of
Invention, Penguin, 1999.
 Numbers, Ronald. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion
Ed, HUP, 2009.
 White Jr, Lynn. Medieval Religion and Technology, UCLA Press, 1978.
UNIT 3: Paradigms in Science and Paradigm Shifts
 Philosophy and Sociology of Science: An Introduction.
 Newtonian Mechanics.
 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
 Quantum Physics.
Readings
 Baggot, Jim. The Quantum Story, OUP, 2016.
 Bricmont, Jean, and Alan, Sokal. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’
Abuse of Science, Picador, 1999.
 Intellectual Impostures, Profile Books, 2003.
 Chalmers, A.E. What is this thing Called Science by Univ Queensland Press, 1999.
 Chandrankunnel, Mathew. Cosmosophy: Physics & Philosophy of the Cosmos,
Dharmaram Publications, 2014.
 Holder, Rodney. Nothing but Atoms and Molecules, Faraday Institute, 2008.
 Newton, Roger. The Truth of Science, Viva Books, 2010.
 Newton, Roger G. From Clockwork to Crapshoot – A History of Physics, Harvard,
2009.
 Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science & Religion: An Introductory Study,
CWI, 2017.
 Smith, Peter Godfrey. Theory and Reality, Chicago, 2003.
 Vinck, Dominique. The Sociology of Scientific Work, Edward Elgar Publishing,
2010.
UNIT 4: Scientific Theories of the Origin of the Universe and Life: Description & Its
Reception
 Big Bang Cosmology, Steady State Theory, Many-World Theories, Anthropic
Cosmological Principle.

3
  Theory of Evolution and the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis: Historical and Sociological
Reasons.
 Christians contributions to Modern Science: Michael Faraday, Don Knuth, Donald
Mackay, Francis Collins, Rosalind Picard, William D Phillips, John Houghton,
Francis Bacon, and John Ray.
 Indian Christian contributions to Science and Religion.
Readings
 Critical Issues: In the Philosophy of Science & Religion ISPCK, Delhi & IISR, Pune
2006.
 Alexander, Denis. Rebuilding the Matrix, Lion, 2001.
 Berry, R. J. True Scientists, True Faith, Monarch, 2015.
 Gosling, David. Science and the Indian Tradition, Routledge, 2008.
 Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time, Penguin, 1995.
 The Theory of Everything, Penguin, 2007.
 Henry, Sarojini. The Encounter of Faith and Science in Inter-faith Dialogue, ISPCK,
2005.
 Kozhamthadam, Job. Contemporary Science and Religion in Dialogue: Challenges
and Opportunities (Ed.), ASSR Pune, 2002.
 Kragh, Helge. Matter and Spirit, ICP , 2004.
 Kragh, Helge. Cosmology and Controversy, Princeton, 1999.
 Larson, Edward. Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, 2004.
 Larson, Edward. The Creation-Evolution Debate: Historical Perspectives, Univ of
Georgia Press, 2007.
 Miller, Keith. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (ed), Eerdman, 2003.
 Mukherjee, Siddharth. The Gene: An Intimate History, Penguin, 2016.
 Numbers, Ronald. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent
Design, HUP, 2006.
 Pamplay, Augustine. East-West Interface of Reality (Ed) ASSR, Pune & ISR, Aluva,
2003.
 Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science & Religion: An Introductory Study,
CWI, 2017.
 Rastogi, Veer Bala. Organic Evolution (Evolutionary Biology), Meditech, 2017.
 Weinberg, Steven. The First Three Minutes, Basic Books, 1993.
 Wilcox, David. God and Evolution.

4
UNIT 5: The Biblical Doctrine of Creation
 Biblical Doctrine of Creation and Creation Ex Nihilo.
 Biblical Doctrine of Creation, Big Bang Cosmology, and Theory of Evolution.
 Genesis as Ancient Cosmogony.
 Evolution and the Problem of Adam.
 God of the Gaps and the Problem of Reductionism.
 Models of Science and Religion relation: Ian Barbour (four models), Ted Peters, and
Michael Stenmark.
Readings
 Alexander, Denis. Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose, Monarch Books,
2008.
 Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1-11, TVP, 1990.
 Brown, William P. The Seven Pillars of Creation, OUP, 2010.
 Holder, Rodney. Nothing But Atoms and Molecules, 2008.
 Lucas, Ernest. Can We Believe Genesis Today?, IVP, 2005.
 McLeish, Tom. Faith & Wisdom in Science, OUP, 2014.
 Ramachandra, Vinoth. Gods That Fail, Wipf & Stock, 2016.
 Walton, John. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins
Debate, IVP, 2009.
 Walton, John. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins
Debate, IVP, 2015.
 Wilcox, David. God and Evolution: A Faith Based Understanding, Judson Press,
2004.
UNIT 6: Science and Miracles
 Towards understanding the meaning of miracles.
 Examination of the case against the miracles in the Bible.
Readings
 Alexander, Denis. Rebuilding the Matrix, Lion Publishing, 2001.
 Blomberg, Craig. Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with
Contemporary Questions, Brazos Press, 2014.
 Humphreys, Colin. The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the
Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories.

5
 Keener, Craig. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Vols),
Baker Academic, 2011.
 Poole, Michael. Miracles: Science, the Bible & Experience, Scripture Union, 1992.

6
 UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Nature of Science, Technology, and Religion.
Science: A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the universe. It relies on empirical observation,
experimentation, and rational analysis. Science is derived from the Latin word ‘scientia’,
meaning knowing. In the Western context, ‘science’ comes into general use after 1300 A.D.
and was primarily understood as knowledge acquired by ‘study’. There are different
meanings of science and consider the different ways in which science is understood in each
of these meanings.

Technology: The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in

industry and everyday life. Technology is a human cultural product shaped by economic,
political, and ethical contexts.

Three definitions or characterizations of technology are: (a) technology as hardware; (b)

technology as rules; and (c) technology as a system. (a) Technology as hardware: technology
is tools and machines. (b) Technology as rules: patterns of means–end relationships (c)
Technology as a system includes hardware as well as the human skills and organization that
are needed to operate and maintain it. Technology as Applied Science: Much of
contemporary technology is based on applied science. Technology involves knowledge,
particularly technical know-how. Many specific inventions are products of chance or trial and
error, rather than a direct application of scientific theory to achieve a pre-assumed goal.

Religion: A system of beliefs, practices, and ethical values centered around questions of
ultimate meaning, often involving belief in a divine or transcendent reality.

Religion is a way of life for its members. Every religious community has its distinctive forms
of individual experience, communal ritual, and ethical concerns. Above all, religion aims at
the transformation of personal life, particularly by liberation from self-centeredness through
commitment to a more inclusive center of devotion. Dennett define religion as ‘social
systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to
be sought.’

7
1.2 Analysis of Enlightenment-Induced Scepticism from within Theological Scholarship.
The Enlightenment (17th–18th Century): A cultural movement emphasizing reason,
individualism, and scepticism of traditional authorities, including religious ones. The
Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a philosophical movement that took
place primarily in Europe and, later, in North America, during the late 17th and early 18th
century. Its participants thought they were illuminating human intellect and culture after the
"dark" Middle Ages. Characteristics of the Enlightenment include the rise of concepts such as
reason, liberty and the scientific method. Enlightenment philosophy was skeptical of religion
— especially the powerful Catholic Church — monarchies and hereditary aristocracy.
Enlightenment philosophy was influential in ushering in the French and American
revolutions and constitutions. Enlightenment rationalism is often considered to be the final
flowering of the bud of English Deism. For our purposes, however, it is especially important
to note the obvious consonance between Deism and the Newtonian worldview. Rather than
being content with blind faith, Enlightenment thinkers wanted proof that something was true.
They tested popular notions with scientifically controlled experiments and personal
experience, though skepticism of one's own senses was another factor in Enlightenment
thought, and caused complicated philosophical conundrums, according to the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Enlightenment intellectuals were skeptical of the divine right of
kings and monarchies in general, scientific claims about the natural world, the nature of
reality and religious doctrine. "Theologians sought to reform their faith during the
Enlightenment while maintaining a true faith in God," said Abernethy. The deist movement
became popular during the Enlightenment. Deism holds that God exists but does not
intervene on Earth. The universe proceeds according to natural, scientifically based laws.
Several of America's Founding Fathers were deists, including Thomas Jefferson.

Impact on Theology:

 Rise of deism: belief in a non-interventionist creator.

 Emergence of biblical criticism: questioning the historicity and literal truth of the
Bible.

 Challenges to traditional doctrines (e.g., miracles, divine revelation).

Theological Responses:

 Liberal theology embraced Enlightenment ideals to reformulate Christianity.

8
  Neo-orthodoxy (e.g., Karl Barth) reasserted divine transcendence and the authority of
revelation.

 Contemporary theology seeks a critical dialogue, affirming both scientific inquiry and
theological depth.

1.3 The Problem with Biblical Literalism: Varieties of Creationism, Old Earth
Creationism, Young Earth Creationism.
Biblical Literalism: Interpreting the Bible in a strictly literal manner, often leading to conflict
with scientific findings.

Varieties of Creationism:

 Young Earth Creationism (YEC): Belief that the earth is approximately 6,000–10,000
years old, based on a literal reading of Genesis.

 Old Earth Creationism (OEC): Accepts geological and cosmological ages of the earth
but maintains that life was created in distinct acts by God.

 Intelligent Design (ID): Asserts that certain features of the universe and living things
are best explained by an intelligent cause, not undirected processes.

Issues with Literalism:

 Incompatibility with established scientific findings in geology, cosmology, and

biology.

 Misunderstanding of the genre and purpose of biblical texts.

Alternative Approaches:

 Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation): God works through natural evolutionary

processes.

 Framework Interpretation: Genesis 1 is theological and literary rather than a scientific

account.

9
1.4 Intelligent Design.
Key Proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer.
Intelligent design, according to which all organisms were created by the design of some
higher intelligence (God). Intelligent design is a belief or theory that the complex structures
of life cannot be explained by natural selection and random mutation, as suggested by
Darwin, but must be explained by some force of wilful design. The inner workings of the
cell, its complexity, require a creative, intelligent force to have set them in motion. Nature, as
most saw it, was deliberately planned, directed, or designed. From that compiled by:
perspective, reasons, ideas, plans, thoughts, patterns, and design would all factor into the
causal history, structure, and function of things, and thus any adequate scientific account of
nature would have to involve reference to those factors. Intelligent Design was based on
William Paley’s work-Natural Theology (1802) where he argued that the intricate and
delicate structure and workings of the watch show that it has been designed by a creative and
intelligent watchmaker. The idea that science can uncover evidence of deliberate design in
the cosmos, and especially the idea that supernatural design can figure in truly scientific
accounts of natural phenomena, subsequently fell on hard times.
Core Claims:
 Certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex" and cannot be explained by
Darwinian evolution.
 The fine-tuning of the universe points to an intelligent cause.
Criticisms:
 Lacks empirical testability, making it unscientific by mainstream standards.
 Often seen as a form of creationism in disguise.
 Fails to provide a positive research program.
Theological Reflection:
 While ID seeks to defend theism, it risks a "God of the gaps" theology.
 A robust theology of creation affirms both divine sovereignty and the integrity of
natural processes.
References:
 Dembski, William A. The Design Inference. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
 Haught, John F. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Westview Press, 2000.

1.5 Examination of the Atheists’ use of Science against faith: Scientism as a worldview.
Scientism: The belief that science is the only valid path to knowledge and that all meaningful
questions can be answered scientifically.

10
Prominent Advocates: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss.

In early twenty-first century a prominent book on atheism became very prominent. These
authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. In
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins states that faith is blind trust without evidence and even
against the evidence. He follows up in The God Delusion with the claim that faith is an evil
because it does not require justification and does not tolerate argument. Harris’s articulation
of the nature of faith is closer to Dawkins’ earlier view. He says that religious faith is
unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern. According to Harris, faith is the permission
religious people give one another to believe things strongly without evidence. Hitchens says
that religious faith is ultimately grounded in wishful thinking. For his part, Dennett implies
that belief in God cannot be reasonable because the concept of God is too radically
indeterminate for the sentence “God exists” to express a genuine proposition. Atheists
subscribe to some version or other of scientism as their criterion for rational belief.
According to scientism, empirical science is the only source of our knowledge of the world
(strong scientism) or, more moderately, the best source of rational belief about the way things
are (weak scientism). Harris and Dawkins are quite explicit about this. Harris equates a
genuinely rational approach to spiritual and ethical questions with a scientific approach to
these sorts of questions. Dawkins insists that the presence or absence of a creative super-
intelligence is a scientific question. The Atheists also affirm evidentialist, the claim that a
belief can be epistemically justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. The conjunction
of scientism and evidentialist entails that a belief can be justified only if it is based on
adequate scientific evidence. The New Atheists’ conclusion that belief in God is unjustified
follows, then, from their addition of the claim that there is inadequate scientific evidence for
God’s existence (and even adequate scientific evidence for God’s non-existence). Dawkins
argues that the “God Hypothesis,” the claim that there exists a superhuman, supernatural
intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe, is “founded on local
traditions of private revelation rather than evidence.”

Main Arguments:

 Religion is outdated and unscientific.

 Faith is irrational.

 Science disproves God or makes belief in God unnecessary.

11
Theological and Philosophical Responses:

 Science cannot answer metaphysical, moral, or existential questions.

 Faith and reason can coexist; they address different domains.

 A comprehensive worldview needs both scientific and theological insight.

Critiques of Scientism:

 Self-refuting: the claim "only science gives knowledge" is itself a philosophical, not
scientific, statement.

 Reductionistic: oversimplifies human experience.

References:

 Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.
Oxford University Press, 2011.

 McGrath, Alister. The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science,
Faith and God. Hodder & Stoughton, 2015.

12
 UNIT 2: HISTORICAL ENCOUNTERS OF SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH:

MYTHS AND FACTS

2.1 Church and advances in medical sciences.

A. Historical Role of the Church in Medicine

 The early Christian church preserved and promoted medical knowledge, especially
through monastic communities and cathedral schools.

 Medieval hospitals (e.g., Hôtel-Dieu in Paris) were often church-founded institutions.

 Religious orders such as the Benedictines played a central role in caregiving and
healing.

B. Key Contributions

 Medical ethics: Grounded in Judeo-Christian values—e.g., the concept of human

dignity and compassion for the sick.

 Clerics like Hildegard of Bingen wrote on natural remedies and holistic care.

 During the Islamic Golden Age, Christian monasteries translated Greek medical texts
that later reentered Europe via Islamic scholars.

C. Common Myth:

 Myth: The Church suppressed all forms of medical science.

 Fact: The Church often supported medical advancement, within theological and moral
frameworks.

2.2 Flat earth cosmogony.

A. The Myth of the Flat Earth

 It is a 19th-century fabrication that medieval Christians widely believed in a flat earth.

 Greek sources like Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Eratosthenes already supported a

spherical earth.

13
  Medieval scholars such as Thomas Aquinas and Bede acknowledged the earth as
round.

B. Source of the Myth

 Popularized by writers like Washington Irving and Andrew Dickson White, often to
promote a conflict thesis between science and religion.

C. Fact Check:

 No major medieval Christian thinker argued for a flat earth.

 The Columbus story is misrepresented; the debate was about distances, not the earth’s
shape.

2.3 Heliocentric Model, and Copernicus, Galileo, and other martyrs of Science.

A. Copernicus (1473–1543)

 A Catholic cleric and astronomer who proposed a heliocentric model in De

revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543).

 Dedicated his book to Pope Paul III; received cautious interest, not condemnation.

B. Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

 Used telescopic evidence to support heliocentrism.

 His trial (1633) by the Roman Inquisition was due to:

o Interpretation of Scripture.

o His approach in challenging Church authority (e.g., Dialogue Concerning the

Two Chief World Systems).

 Was not executed or tortured; placed under house arrest.

C. The Myth of Martyrdom

 No known scientist was martyred for science by the Church.

 Galileo’s case was complex—more political and theological than purely scientific.

D. Fact:

14
  The Galileo affair is not a universal example of Church vs. science but a unique case
shaped by context.

Nicolaus Copernicus The 16th century astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), “when
it realized that our earth was not the centre of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world-
system of a magnitude hardly conceivable”. The Ptolemaic system of astronomy, which
Copernicanism eventually superseded, was indeed geocentric in the sense that it placed earth
(geo-) at the center of the universe (Heliocentric) literally and geometrically. Copernicus first
outlined his ideas about the heliocentric theory in a manuscript titled “Commentariolus.”
There he suggested a heliostatic system, where the sun was at the center of the universe and
the earth made rotations. He published “De revolutionibus” in March 1543, after more than a
decade of revisions. The book included a letter to Pope Paul III arguing the legitimacy of the
heliocentric theory, then fiercely opposed by the Catholic Church.” The article, “The
Copernican myths,” debunks many assumptions: that people regarded Earth as the center of
the universe with pride, that Earth was believed to be the center of the universe rather than at
the center, that the Catholic Church immediately rejected Copernicus’ findings. It was not
until 1616 that the church banned the book. The ban continued until 1835. Galileo Galilei In
the early years of the seventeenth century the Italian mathematician and natural philosopher
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) openly advocated the theory of the earth’s motion elaborated in
Nicolaus Copernicus’s book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543). As a result,
he was persecuted, tried, and condemned by the Catholic church. He spent the last nine years
of his life under house arrest in his villa outside Florence. Galileo started showing real
physical truth with the new telescopic evidence rendered Copernicanism a serious contender
and, he came increasingly under attack from conservative philosophers and clergymen. They
argued that he was a heretic because he believed in the earth’s motion and the earth’s motion
contradicted Scripture. Galileo felt he could not remain silent and decided to refute the
biblical arguments Compiled by: against Copernicanism. He wrote his criticism in the form
of long, private letters, in December 1613 to his disciple Benedetto Castelli and in spring
1615 to the grand duchess dowager Christina. In December 1615, however, Galileo went to
Rome of his own accord to defend the Copernican theory. On June 22, 1633, with a harsher
sentence the verdict found Galileo guilty and called him ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’. This
happened when Cardinal Maffeo Barberini became Pope Urban VIII. On June 30 the pope
granted Galileo permission to travel to Siena to live under house arrest at the residence of the
archbishop, a good friend of Galileo’s. The archbishop hosted him for five months. In

15
December 1633 Galileo returned to his own villa in Arcetri, near Florence, where he
remained except for a brief period in 1638, when he resided within the city limits of Florence
under house arrest until his death in 1642. Giordano Brunoi First Martyr of Modern Science
Giordano Bruno, original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il Nolano, (born 1548, Nola, near
Naples [Italy]— died February 17, 1600, Rome), Italian philosopher, astronomer,
mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of
these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he
rejected the traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the
Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a
sphere of fixed stars. Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered
at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time
when both the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian
and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe. Giordano Bruno,
a philosopher who was known as a heretic and an advocate of Copernican theory. While he
was condemned, Bruno became to be known as “the first martyr of the new science” after he
was burned at the stake in 17 February 1600 in Rome’s Flower Market called Campo de’
Fiori.

2.4 Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

A. Overview

 On the Origin of Species (1859): Proposed natural selection as the mechanism of

evolution.

 Provoked theological debates on creation, human uniqueness, and divine providence.

B. Christian Responses

 Initial reactions varied: Some theologians accepted evolution as compatible with

divine design.

 Asa Gray, a Christian botanist, supported Darwin and saw evolution as God’s method.

 Others, like Bishop Wilberforce, critiqued it on theological and scientific grounds.

C. Contemporary Positions

 Young Earth Creationism: Literal reading of Genesis.

16
  Theistic Evolution: God uses evolution as a tool (e.g., BioLogos Foundation).

 Intelligent Design: Argues for signs of design in nature but criticized for lack of
empirical testability.

Charles Darwin, in full Charles Robert Darwin, (born February 12, 1809, Shrewsbury,
Shropshire, England—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent), English naturalist whose scientific
theory of evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary
studies. Charles Robert Darwin (1809 1882), the second son of a freethinking doctor and a
devout Unitarian mother, was christened in the Church of England. Since his childhood he
was a regular Church goers but he finds no science in Genesis. Darwin saw that living species
—like races of people, plants, and animals—might have come into existence by descending
from one another Darwin married Emma Wedg wood in 1842. Emma was a sincere Christian
like Charles’s mother, Unitarian by conviction, Anglican in practice. But Charles’ collapse
when father died in 1848 he was collapse and his father’s death had spiked him his faith.
Also, when in 1851 his ten years old daughter Annie died, he found no comfort in Emma’s
creed. So, began to developed his works Origin of Species (1859), but did not mention the
word evolution, but Darwin used creation and its cognates over one hundred times. In his
long- awaited Descent of Man (1871), Darwin portrayed humans as evolving physically by
natural selection and then intellectually and morally through the inherited effects of habit,
education, and religion. Later, theism evident in the Origin of Species became worn down
and with no belief in the presence of a personal God, Darwin felt he must be content with
Agnostic and his confession was published after his death in 1887. The initial reaction of the
Church seemed to have been one of panic. Initially there was strong opposition from the
clergy, because of the perceived implications of the theory. The Church opposed it tooth and
nailed to the new scientific hypothesis which is considered to be heretics against God’s
creation. Some accused evolutionary theory of bringing together “the occult, magic, and
every conceivable human Compiled by: depravity,” while others portrayed it as “the
continuation of Satan's long war against God," and as Satan’s weapon for dethroning God
(Morris 1989). But eventually, drawing inspiration from St. Augustine, who had made the
startling statement as far back as the fifth century AD, that God had given the world at its
creation the power and life germs which would unfold as the cosmos developed, some
proposed that evolution is consistent with the idea of the providence of God guiding the
emergence of humanity. Although critical of any idea that biological evolution is due to
random factors (where "random" is understood as meaning "outside the control of God"),

17
writers such as Benjamin B. Warfield held that evolution was consistent with the biblical
view of the origins of human nature. Going further, some saw the new theory as shedding
further light on the process through which God created the world and human beings.
Psychoanalysis: The Freudian Critique of Religion

2.5 The Christians Roots of Western Science.

A. Foundational Beliefs

 Belief in a rational Creator led to the idea that nature is ordered and intelligible.

 Contingency of creation: Nature must be studied empirically, not derived only by

reason.

 Science was seen as a way to "think God's thoughts after Him" (Kepler).

B. Key Figures

 Johannes Kepler (Lutheran): Laws of planetary motion.

 Isaac Newton: Saw himself uncovering divine laws.

 Robert Boyle: Founder of modern chemistry and a devout Christian.

C. Institutional Support

 Royal Society: Early members were largely theistic or Christian.

 Universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Paris) were church-founded and key in scientific

discourse.

(1) It is certainly true that the fathers of the early Christian church did not view support of the
classical sciences as a major obligation. These sciences had low priority for the church
fathers, for whom the major concerns were (quite properly) the establishment of Christian
doctrine, defense of the faith, and the edification of believers. But (2), low or medium priority
was far from zero priority. Throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern period the
handmaiden formula was employed countless times to justify the investigation of nature.
Indeed, some of the most celebrated achievements of the Western scientific tradition were
made by religious scholars who justified their labours (at least in part) by appeal to the
handmaiden formula. (3) No institution or cultural force of the patristic period offered more
encouragement for the investigation of nature than did the Christian church. Contemporary
pagan culture was no more favourable to disinterested speculation about the cosmos than was

18
Christian culture. It follows that the presence of the Christian church enhanced, rather than
damaged, the development of the natural sciences.

2.6 Scientific Method and Astrology.

A. Scientific Method

 Developed significantly in the 17th century:

o Francis Bacon: Empiricism and inductive reasoning.

o René Descartes: Rationalism and deductive reasoning.

 The method was influenced by Christian metaphysics—belief in order and cause-

effect in nature.

B. Astrology vs. Astronomy

 Medieval period: No strict division between astrology and astronomy.

 Over time, astrology (predictive and occult) was rejected by Church and science.

 Astronomy became grounded in empirical observation and mathematical models.

C. Religious Critique

 The Church condemned astrology’s fatalism and divinatory claims as contrary to

human freedom and divine providence.

Tyndall and Thompson, Galton claimed that the scientific method was the only appropriate
means for knowing the natural world: “An unscientific reasoner will be guided by a confused
recollection of crude experience. A scientific reasoner will scrutinize each separate
experience before he admits it as evidence, and will compare the cases he has selected on a
methodical system.” Church Father, especially Augustine, believed in the reality of celestial
forces, but rejected their influence on the mind on account of the fatalistic implications.
Christians, he warned, should have nothing to do with astrologers. But to discredit astrology,
he did not merely point to its theological dangers; he also advanced scientific arguments. a
substantial current of anti-astrological sentiment during the Middle Ages took its inspiration
from Augustine and other theologians who were opposed to astrology because, in its
deterministic form, it threatened the ideas of human free will and responsibility Mersenne a
French Priest works in 1623 were attacks on scepticism and atheism A sustained attack on

19
magic, cabalism, astrology and other like ‘arts’, and forms part of the important moment in
the history of ideas when the transition from thought’s obeisance to the demands of religious
orthodoxy passed through a period of inflated hopes for mystical or magical short-cuts to the
universe’s secrets. Mersenne’s attack on magic, Cabala, and the rest was of a piece with the
efforts by Bacon and Descartes to distinguish, each in his own way, science from those
magical forms of thinking, by describing and enjoining methodologies better destined to
arrive at knowledge. Rosicrucianism is a spiritual and cultural movement that arose in Europe
in the early 17th century. The mysterious doctrine of the order is allegedly "built on esoteric-
all forms of occultism, alchemy, magic truths of the ancient past", which "concealed from the
average man, provide insight into nature, the Compiled by: physical universe, and the
spiritual realm." Supported enthusiastically by Frederick V, the Elector Palatine, but when his
tenure of the Bohemian throne ended at the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the
Church, with his militant wing- the Jesuit suppressed Rosicrucianism and anything occult
associated activities involving Hermeticism, magic or Cabala, as threatening individuals and
cities. This was successfully done in the first half of the 1620s, so in 1923 especially
Rosicrucianism in France faded away.

2.7 Religion and the Rise of Technology.

A. Christian Worldview and Innovation

 Belief in human stewardship of nature encouraged exploration and innovation.

 Protestant Reformation emphasized vocation, fuelling technological work as service

to God.

B. Technological Institutions

 Christian patronage of:

o Printing press (e.g., Gutenberg’s Bible).

o Clock-making, linked with the idea of a universe governed by laws.

C. Ethics and Technology

 Christian tradition engages with the moral dimensions of technology:

o Just war theory and military tech.

20
 o Medical ethics in biotechnology.

o Ecological responsibility in environmental tech

From Medieval to our today’s world expectations assume a more modern, technological
expression. The present enchantment is rooted in religious myths and ancient imagining.
Today’s technology in their sober pursuit of utility, power and profit seem to sets society’s
standard for rationality, they are driven also by distant dreams, spiritual yearnings for
supernatural redemption. With the new approach we are witness to two seemingly
incompatible enthusiasms and a widespread infatuation with technological advance and a
confidence in the ultimate triumph of reason also a resurgence of fundamentalist faith to a
religious revival. The advance of science and technology with its rational rigors grounded in
practical experience and material knowledge, signalled the demise of religious authority and
enthusiasm based upon blind faith and superstitions. Religion belonged to the primitive past,
secular science and technology to the mature future. Religious leaders promote their revival
of spirit through an avid and accomplished use of the latest technological advances, scientist
and technologists increasingly attest publicly to the value of their work in the pursuit of
divine knowledge. The resurgence of religious expression testifies to the spiritual sterility of
technological rationality, that religious belief is now being renewed as a necessary
complement to instrumental reason because it provides the spiritual sustenance that
technology lacks. Modern technology and modern faith are neither complementary nor
opposites, nor do they represent succeeding stages of human development. They are merged
and an essentially religious endeavour. Modern technology and religion have evolved
together, and the technological enterprise has been and remains suffused with religious belief.
Religious preoccupations pervade the space programs at every level and constitute a major
motivation behind extraterrestrial travel and exploration. Artificial Intelligence advocates
possibilities of machine-based immortality and resurrection, the architects of virtual reality
and cyberspace. Genetic Engineers imagine themselves divinely inspired participants in a
new creation. All these technological pioneers harbor deep-seated beliefs which are variations
upon familiar religious themes.

21
 UNIT 3: Paradigms in Science and Paradigm Shifts

3.1 Philosophy and Sociology of Science: An Introduction.

A. Philosophy of Science

 Definition: Study of foundational questions about the nature, scope, and validity of
scientific knowledge.

 Key concerns:

o What counts as science?

o How is knowledge justified?

o What is a scientific explanation?

B. Key Figures

 Karl Popper – Falsifiability as the demarcation criterion: A theory is scientific if it

can, in principle, be refuted by evidence.

 Thomas Kuhn – Paradigm shifts: Scientific progress occurs through revolutionary

changes in worldviews or paradigms (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962).

 Imre Lakatos – Research programs develop through theoretical cores and changing
auxiliary hypotheses.

C. Kuhn’s Paradigm Theory

 Normal Science: Science practiced within an accepted framework.

 Crisis: Anomalies accumulate and cannot be resolved within the paradigm.

 Revolution: A new paradigm replaces the old (e.g., Newton → Einstein).

 Incommensurability: Competing paradigms are not always directly comparable.

D. Sociology of Science

 Explores how social, political, and cultural contexts shape scientific practice.

 Robert Merton: Science is governed by norms—communalism, universalism,

disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.

22
  The Strong Programme (David Bloor): All scientific beliefs—true or false—should
be explained sociologically.

Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy that critically examines the foundations,
methods, products and implications of scientific activity. According to William Bechtel, It is
a field devoted to analyzing the character of scientific investigation. It attempts to answer to
plethora of questions in scientific investigation. Merrilee H.Salmon explains philosophy of
science as the branch of philosophy that reflects and critically analyzes science. John Losee
brings out four viewpoints on the philosophy of science. First view, the formulation of
worldviews that are consistent based on scientific theories. Second, it is an exposition of the
presuppositions and predispositions of scientist. Third, a discipline in which the concepts and
theories of the sciences are analyzed and clarified. Fourth, philosophy of science as a second-
order criteriology. Major Schools (Method) in Philosophy of Science (a) Deductive Method It
is a series of deductions made from a priori truths, started by the Greeks especially Aristotle.
(b) Inductive Method It is to stress on observation as well as in its acceptance of the
methodological rule that scientists must generalize from empirical observations to
overarching natural laws. Modern Science was born with the advent of the inductive
approach. (c) Falsification The philosophy of Science moves from induction to falsification
as the defining mark of scientific practices. Karl Pepper is the proponent of this method.
According to him, what demarcates science from non-science is the practice of formulating
risky hypotheses and then trying to falsify them. (d) The Received View The Received view
held that scientific theories and scientific rationality could be clearly delineated from other
human rational endeavors. (e) Subjective Research It held that scientists are engaged not
merely in seeing the world range of interpretive issues and presuppositions that it involves,
which perceives that scientific research not just presents uninterpreted data but expectations
and conceptual commitments of the researchers influence. There are five prominent
philosophers of science in the twentieth century. They are: Michael Polanyi, Karl Popper,
Imre Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend.

Sociology of Science Sociology of science deals with the social conditions and effects of
science and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity. Science is a cultural
tradition, preserved and transmitted from generation to generation partly because it is valued
in its own right and partly because of its wide technological applications. The Sociology of
science seeks to establish as specifically and precisely as possible the social conditions under
which science makes maximal progress. Sociologist of science has concentrated on this

23
characteristic of science as a tradition and as an institution. Science can err and it has erred.
We have seen that science is not free from the influence of society, religion and personal
inclination and emotion of scientific researches which makes scientific research subjective at
least partially. Both science and religion are the products of human beings and by nature
limited, thence should be taken together as complementing rather than competing, enriching
one another than encroaching, having dialogical relationship as both are attempts to unearth
the inexhaustible reality of God and his creation.

3.2 Newtonian Mechanics.

A. Historical Background

 Developed by Isaac Newton in the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

(1687).

 Built upon the empirical work of Galileo and Kepler.

 Represented the culmination of the mechanical philosophy.

B. Core Features

1. Three Laws of Motion

o Inertia, Force = mass × acceleration, Action-reaction.

2. Universal Gravitation

o All bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

3. Determinism

o The future of a system can be precisely predicted given its initial conditions.

C. The Newtonian Worldview

 The universe as a machine, governed by immutable laws.

 Provided a rational, predictable framework.

 Compatible with natural theology: Newton saw God's providence in the order of
nature.

D. Influence

24
  Became the dominant scientific paradigm for two centuries.

 Impacted theology (e.g., Deism) and philosophy (e.g., Enlightenment rationalism).

The world we live in is a complex place, and we must expect any theory that describes it
accurately to share that complexity. The mathematical study of the motion of everyday
objects and the forces that affect them is called classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is
often called Newtonian mechanics because nearly the entire study builds on the work of Isaac
Newton1. The main works of Newton was based on The Newtonian Mechanics laws and
principles at the core of classical mechanics include the following: Newton's First Law of
Motion: A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless
it is acted upon by an external force. Newton's Second Law of Motion: The net force acting
on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration. Newton's Third Law of
Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's Law of Universal
Gravitation: The pull of gravity between two objects will be proportional to the masses of the
objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass.
Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and instead changes
from one form to another; for example, mechanical energy turning into heat energy. Law of
Conservation of Momentum: In the absence of external forces such as friction, when objects
collide, the total momentum before the collision is the same as the total momentum after the
collision. Bernoulli's Principle: Within a continuous streamline of fluid flow, a fluid's
hydrostatic pressure will balance in contrast to its speed and elevation. Newtonian Mechanics
and faith: God’s word is therefore the foundation for all of creation, and provides a
foundation in particular for those regularities that are termed scientific law. Science in all its
parts depends on the belief in regularities, and on confidence that laws exist. In so doing, it is
depending on the word of God and on the regularities that God specifies in his speech.4 In
particular, the real laws of physics are the word of God. Human physicists give us an
approximation to that word. This connection between science and the word of God has at
least two fruits. First, by linking God to the question of scientific law, it raises the question as
to whether differences in people’s views of God can result in differences in scientific opinion.
According to the Second Law, acceleration is proportional to the force impressed. The
constant of proportionality is the mass of the object. F = ma; F is the force; m is the mass; and
a is the acceleration. The force F is mass times acceleration, making the force proportional
both to the mass and to the acceleration. Simple proportionality is built in. And, when we
relate our discoveries in the macrocosm to the tabernacle as microcosm, we can affirm that

25
the beauty of the simple proportions in the tabernacle is related to the beauty of the simple
proportions in the macrocosm. Both are the product of beautiful designing on the part of
God.2 The glory of God is manifested in physics in any number of ways, in its beauties, in its
1 Isaac Newton (1642-1727) becomes the most influential scientist of the 17th century, his
ideas becoming the foundation of modern physics. Sir Isaac Newton's three laws of motion
describe the motion of massive bodies and how they interact became the basis for modern
physics. 2https://frame-poythress.org/redeeming-physics-biblical-and-theological-resources-
for-a-god-centered-approach/ Compiled by: harmonies, in its impressive exactitude and
power. But it is also manifested specifically in reflections of the Trinitarian character of God.

3.3 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

A. Overview

 Represented a paradigm shift in physics, replacing Newtonian absolutes with

relativistic frameworks.

B. Special Relativity (1905)

 Postulates:

o Laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

o Speed of light is constant in a vacuum.

 Consequences:

o Time dilation, length contraction, mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²).

o No absolute space or time; simultaneity is relative.

C. General Relativity (1915)

 Gravity is not a force but the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy.

 Replaced Newton’s concept of gravitational force with geometric theory.

 Confirmed by:

o Eddington's 1919 eclipse experiment (light bending near the sun).

o Later observations of gravitational lensing, black holes.

D. Theological and Philosophical Implications

26
  Challenged mechanistic determinism.

 Reopened space for divine action not bound by Newtonian constraints.

 Deepened cosmological speculation: the universe had a beginning (Big Bang)

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) shook the foundations of physics with the introduction of his
Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, and his General Theory of Relativity in 1915 was the
recognition that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and an absolute physical boundary
for motion. The theory of relativity states that objects will move slower and shorten in length
from the point of view of an observer on Earth. Einstein also derived the famous equation, E
= mc2, which reveals the equivalence of mass and energy. Theory of Relativity – The Basics
Physicists usually dichotomize the Theory of Relativity into two parts. The first is the Special
Theory of Relativity, which essentially deals with the question of whether rest and motion are
relative or absolute, and with the consequences of Einstein’s conjecture that they are relative.
The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they
accelerate, particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton’s theory,
predicting important new results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies. The General
Theory of Relativity correctly reproduces all validated predictions of Newton’s theory, but
expands on our understanding of some of the key principles. Newtonian physics had
previously hypothesised that gravity operated through empty space, but the theory lacked
explanatory power as far as how the distance and mass of a given object could be transmitted
through space. Theory of Relativity and Faith Hugh Ross a pastor/astronomer with the faith-
and-science group says, "It's that Theory of General Relativity that predicts there's a
beginning to the universe. Until Albert Einstein's theory came along, astronomers and
physicists thought the universe was infinitely old," "The Theory of General Relativity now
said, 'No, it's finite in time. It has a beginning,' which implies there must be a Beginner who
was responsible for bringing the universe into existence." With the theory of relativity
absolute space and time, unchanging and infinite universe lost their meaning and they are
replaced by dynamics space and time, and finite universe. Thus, Stephen Hawking and Roger
Penrose concluded that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must
have a beginning and possibly an end. This implies that the biblical eschatological dimension
which is the major focus of the New Testament teaching for the Christian hope that the world
will be end and Jesus will come back to rule the world and every knees will bow down and
take back all those who believes in him to be with him forever.

27
3.4 Quantum Physics.

A. Origin and Development

 Emerged in the early 20th century to explain anomalies in atomic and subatomic
phenomena.

 Key contributors: Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger.

B. Core Principles

 Quantization: Energy is not continuous but comes in discrete packets (quanta).

 Wave-Particle Duality: Particles (like electrons) exhibit both wave and particle
properties.

 Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Limits on the precision of simultaneously

measuring position and momentum.

 Schrödinger’s Equation: Describes the wave function of quantum systems.

 Probability: Outcomes are probabilistic, not deterministic.

C. Interpretations

 Copenhagen Interpretation: Measurement collapses wave function; no reality without

observation.

 Many-Worlds Interpretation: All possible outcomes occur in branching universes.

 Pilot-Wave Theory: Hidden variables guide particles.

D. Philosophical and Theological Reflections

 Indeterminacy invites reconsideration of determinism and free will.

 Reality and observer-dependence challenge classical metaphysics.

 The universe at its core appears relational, mysterious, and non-mechanical.

 Offers new metaphors for theological reflection: mystery, openness, and

transcendence.

Quantum Mechanics (Physics) is considered as one of the century’s most innovative and
fruitful scientific insights into the working of nature. Quantum mechanics deals with the

28
behavior of matter and light on the atomic and subatomic scale. It attempts to describe and
account for the properties of molecules and atoms and their constituents-electrons, protons
and other more esoteric particles such as quarks and gluons. These properties include the
interactions of the particles with one another and with electromagnetic radiation such as light,
X-rays and gamma rays. Quantum mechanic started with Max Planck in 1900 when he
discovered that light, X-rays and other waves could not be emitted at an arbitrary rate but
only in certain energy packets that he called ‘quanta’. Where light and other electromagnetic
radiation can appear not only as electromagnetic waves but also in the form of quanta which
are known as photon. Quantum mechanics was formulated by Werner Heisenberg from
Germany, Erwin Schrodinger from Austria, Paul Dirac from England. Heisenberg theory
came to be known as ‘Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle’- The position and the velocity of an
object cannot both be measure exactly at the same time, instead they had a quantum state
which was the combination of position and velocity. One of the most striking features of the
atom which quantum theory reveals is that the small particles within the atom have dual
aspects i.e. the subatomic units matter are both particle and wave. Light take the form of
electromagnetic waves or particles. Thus, it is not possible to predict the atomic event with
certainty; we can only say how likely it will happen. Quantum mechanics and Christian faith:
Quantum mechanics has far reaching consequences the way we see the material world. First,
science ability to predict and determine has a limit, indicating that science is not always
reliable to determine the universal laws. So, the role of God cannot be ruled out. Second,
Quantum mechanics reveals that scientific knowledge is not always objective knowledge but
subjectivity is involved making scientific knowledge more like theological knowledge. Third,
Quantum mechanics reveals a basic oneness of the universe. We cannot separate things in the
universe, as we penetrate deep into matter, we do not see isolated basic building block but a
complicated web of relations between various parts of the whole. There is a connectedness in
the universe that defies explanation. A change in a subatomic particle on this side of the
galaxy will instantaneously make a difference in an entangled particle on the other side. This
is not science fiction. It is science fact. Subatomic particles are not the only things that are
entangled in our universe. So are we. We are entangled with one another and even with
creation—something we are only now discovering but which Paul asserted to be true in
Romans 8. God designed humanity this way from the beginning. It is part of what makes us
great. We are entangled with people we do not know, from places we have never been, at
times we have not existed, in the deep past and in the unknown future. The entire human race
can be conceived as one large, interconnected thing, stretching across space and time. If we

29
could see what God sees when he looks at humanity, we would not only see a hundred billion
or so disconnected individuals but a human race that is more like a massive body with a
hundred billion parts. What quantum physics does show us the oddness of the world. It is
proof that rational, logical thought doesn’t completely explain the universe. The oddness of
the universe makes the oddness of Christianity more believable. Physics doesn’t prove
Christianity. But what quantum mechanics and Compiled by: Christianity both want to tell us
is that the world isn’t exactly as it seems. It’s much, much more peculiar and much, much
more wonderful than it seems.

30
 UNIT 4: Scientific Theories of the Origin of the Universe and Life: Description & Its
Reception

4.1 Big Bang Cosmology, Steady State Theory, Many-World Theories, Anthropic
Cosmological Principle.

A. Big Bang Cosmology

 Summary:

o Proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, in the

1920s.

o Universe originated from a singularity—an infinitely dense point—around

13.8 billion years ago.

o Supported by Hubble's redshift observations, cosmic microwave

background radiation (CMBR), and abundance of light elements.

 Reception:

o Early resistance due to its theological implications (e.g., a beginning in time).

o Eventually accepted as the dominant cosmological model.

o Some saw it as compatible with creation ex nihilo, but theologians caution

against equating Big Bang with Genesis 1:1.

B. Steady State Theory

 Summary:

o Proposed by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and Thomas Gold in 1948.

o Universe has no beginning or end; matter is continuously created to maintain

constant density.

 Reception:

o Popular in the mid-20th century.

o Rejected after evidence from CMBR and observations of galactic evolution.

31
 o Championed partly to avoid theological connotations of a temporal beginning.

C. Many-World Theories (Multiverse)

 Summary:

o Suggests our universe is one of many parallel or branching universes.

o Arise from:

 Quantum mechanics (e.g., Many-Worlds Interpretation).

 Cosmic inflation theory.

 String theory landscapes.

 Reception:

o Controversial due to lack of empirical falsifiability.

o Raises philosophical and theological questions: uniqueness, purpose, and

God's relationship to multiple realities.

D. Anthropic Cosmological Principle

 Summary:

o Asserts that physical constants appear finely tuned to allow life.

o Weak Anthropic Principle: We observe the universe this way because we are
here to observe it.

o Strong Anthropic Principle: The universe is in some way compelled to allow

for conscious life.

 Reception:

o Some interpret this as evidence of design.

o Others argue it supports a naturalistic selection among many universes.

o Engages theology on divine intentionality and providence.

32
Big Bang Cosmology: Most cosmologists today believe that the universe came into being
with the explosion of infinitely dense and infinitely small particles some 10 to 20 billion
years ago. This explosion is popularly known as Big Bang. At that time all the matter in the
universe was packed into a dense mass, at temperature of many trillions of degrees. The
dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot universe led to an explosion of cosmic
hydrogen bombs which marked the birth of the universe. George Lemaitre (1894-1966) a
Belgian Priest, astronomer and Professor of Physics was the one who proposed the famous
Big Bang Theory. According to him the explosion of universe could be traced back to a very
dense state in the distant past in which the primeval atom disintegrate in an explosion giving
rise to space and time and the expansion continues. Steady-state theory: Steady-state theory,
in cosmology, a view that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a constant
average density, with matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the
same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their increasing distance
and velocity of recession. A steady-state universe has no beginning or end in time, and from
any point within it the view on the grand scale—i.e., the average density and arrangement of
galaxies—is the same. Galaxies of all possible ages are intermingled. The theory was first put
forward in 1948 by British scientists Sir Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle.
It was further developed by Hoyle to deal with problems that had arisen in connection with
the alternative big-bang hypothesis. Observations since the 1950s (most notably, those of the
cosmic microwave background) have produced much evidence contradictory to the steady-
state picture and have led scientists to overwhelmingly support the big-bang model. Many-
World Theories Physicist Young Hugh Everett and Niels Bohr had suggested about the
quantum world. Many-World Theory consists of two parts: 1. A mathematical theory which
yields the time evolution of the quantum state of the (single) Universe. 2. A prescription
which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our
experiences. Anthropic cosmological principle Compiled by: The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle was proposed by John D. Barrow, a cosmologist, and Frank J. Tipler, a cosmologist
and mathematical physicist. It main focus is considering the structure of the universe, the
values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence
of life. Their works is mainly of theoretical astrophysics, it also touches on quantum physics,
chemistry, and earth science. They argue that Homo sapiens is, with high probability, the
only intelligent species in the Milky Way. The anthropic perspective is also important in
evaluating the predictions of quantum cosmological models that make only probabilistic
predictions about the structure of the universe.

33
4.2 Theory of Evolution and the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis: Historical and Sociological
Reasons.

A. Historical Context

 Charles Darwin (1809–1882): On the Origin of Species (1859).

 Proposed natural selection as the mechanism of descent with modification.

 Challenged static views of species and literal interpretations of Genesis.

B. Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (1930s–1940s)

 Merged Darwin’s natural selection with Mendelian genetics.

 Included mathematical models (population genetics) and molecular biology.

 Key figures: Fisher, Haldane, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Simpson, and Watson and Crick.

C. Sociological Reasons for Resistance

 Perceived threat to:

o Human uniqueness and dignity.

o Biblical authority and the doctrine of creation.

o Morality and teleology (i.e., purposeful design).

D. Current Christian Responses

 Young Earth Creationism (literal 6-day creation).

 Intelligent Design (detectable signs of design in nature).

 Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creation (e.g., BioLogos): God uses evolution as a

creative mechanism

Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the
integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's
theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, and mathematical population
genetics. Although this was not the historical meaning of the term neo-Darwinism, it has been
the popular and scientific use of the expression since the synthesis of the 1930s. (See Origin

34
of the term neo-Darwinism.) Other terminology used synonymously with neo-Darwinism are
modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis, and neo-Darwinian synthesis. Neo-Darwinism has
been one of the most significant, overall developments in evolutionary biology since the time
of Darwin. Bowler (1988) stated that there is "a sense in which the emergence of the modern
synthetic theory can be seen as the first real triumph of Darwinism." Essentially, neo-
Darwinism introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of
evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical
Darwinism with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of
changes in allele frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly
divided research traditions, the Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This
fusion took place roughly between 1936 and 1947. While the modern synthesis remains the
prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it has both been expanded and
challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, concepts
related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macro evolutionary
trends from micro evolutionary trends have been challenged. Major figures in the
development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, Ronald Fisher,
Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, William D. Hamilton, Cyril
Darlington, Sergei Chetverikov, E. B. Ford, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord
Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins. 3. Historical and Sociological Reasons for acceptance
and opposition of specific Scientific Theories of origins The theory of creation and the theory
of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants. There
were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or, as a matter of
fact, to the origin of a single type of living organism. These events were unique historical
events which have occurred only once. Thus, no one has ever seen anything created, nor has
anyone ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian nor an ape evolve into man. The changes
we see occurring today are mere fluctuations in populations which result neither in an
increase in complexity nor significant change. Therefore, neither creation nor evolution is a
scientific theory. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence.
Thus the notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than
religious mysticism is blatantly false. This is being recognized more and more today, even by
evolutionists themselves. Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has
stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but is a metaphysical research program. It
seems obvious that a theory that is outside of empirical science, or a theory that lies beyond
the range of testable hypothesis cannot qualify as a scientific theory. Any suggestion that

35
these challenges to the status Compiled by: of evolution as a scientific theory are exceptions
can be refuted by a thorough search of the scientific literature. Creation and evolution are
thus theoretical inferences about history. Even though neither qualifies as a scientific theory,
each possesses scientific character, since each attempts to correlate and explain scientific
data. Creation and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientific models which are
employed to correlate and explain data related to origins. The terms "creation theory,"
"evolution theory," "creations science," and "evolution science" are appropriate as long as it
is clear that the use of such terms denote certain inferences about the history of origins which
employ scientific data rather than referring to testable scientific theories. Since neither is a
scientific theory and each seeks to explain the same scientific data related to origins, it is not
only incorrect but arrogant and self-serving for evolutionists to declare that evolution is
science while creation is mere religion. Creation is in every sense as scientific as evolution. It
can thus be stated unequivocally that evolution is as religious as creation, and conversely, that
creation is as scientific as evolution. D.J. Futuyma argues that Creation and evolution,
between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms
either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have
developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a
fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

4.3 Christians contributions to Modern Science: Michael Faraday, Don Knuth, Donald
Mackay, Francis Collins, Rosalind Picard, William D Phillips, John Houghton, Francis
Bacon, and John Ray.

Name Field Key Contribution Faith Integration

Saw science as a way to

Francis Father of the scientific
Philosophy of Science restore the dominion lost in
Bacon method
the Fall

Classification of plants Coined the term species;

John Ray Natural History
and animals saw nature as God’s creation

Michael Electromagnetism, field Deeply religious; member of

Physics
Faraday theory the Sandemanian church

Don Knuth Computer Science Algorithms, The Art of Writes theological

Computer reflections; believes in

36
Name Field Key Contribution Faith Integration

Programming harmony of faith and reason

Developed models
Donald Mind-brain duality,
Neuroscience/Philosophy compatible with free will
Mackay information theory
and divine action

Evangelical Christian;
Francis
Genetics Human Genome Project author of The Language of
Collins
God

Advocates for ethical AI;

Rosalind Emotion recognition in
Affective Computing Christian perspective shapes
Picard AI
her research vision

William D. Nobel Prize for laser Active Methodist; speaks on

Physics
Phillips cooling science-faith dialogue

John Climate science and Christian environmentalist;

Atmospheric Physics
Houghton policy (IPCC) warned about climate crisis

Michael Faraday: Michael Faraday, (born September 22, 1791, Newington, Surrey, England
—died August 25, 1867, Hampton Court, Surrey), English physicist and chemist whose many
experiments contributed greatly to the understanding of electromagnetism. Faraday, who
became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century, began his career as a chemist. His
major contribution, however, was in the field of electricity and magnetism. He was the first to
produce an electric current from a magnetic field, invented the first electric motor and
dynamo, demonstrated the relation between electricity and chemical bonding, discovered the
effect of magnetism on light. His family belonged to a small Christian sect, called
Sandemanians, that provided spiritual sustenance to Faraday throughout his life. It was the
single most important influence upon him and strongly affected the way in which he
approached and interpreted nature. Faraday received only the rudiments of an education,
learning to read, write, and cipher in a church Sunday school. Don Knuth: Donald Ervin
Knuth, (born Jan. 10, 1938, Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.), American mathematician and computer
scientist. Knuth earned a doctorate in mathematics in 1963 from the California Institute of
Technology. Donald Ervin Knuth is considered one of the world's leading computer scientists
and mathematicians. As a pioneer in computer science he developed Computer Programming

37
TeX, a document-preparation system . Because of its precise control of special characters and
mathematical formulas, TeX and its variants soon became standard for submitting typeset-
ready scientific and mathematical research papers for publication. Knuth has received many
awards and honours, including the Kyoto Prize (1996), the A.M. Turing Award (1974), and
the National Medal of Science (1979). Don Knuth innovative project called ‘3:16 project’
was taken from John 3:16 is his famous a personal exploration of Biblical literature which he
regards as a turning point in his own life. Donald Mackay: Compiled by: Donald
MacCrimmon MacKay (9 August 1922 – 6 February 1987) was a British physicist, and
professor at the Department of Communication and Neuroscience at Keele University in
Staffordshire, England, known for his contributions to information theory and the theory of
brain organization. He had been brought up in the Calvinism of the Free Church of Scotland
(his father was both minister and doctor) and graduated from St Andrews University before
moving to England. Throughout his professional life Donald strove to integrate together his
commitment as a scientist to hypothesis-devising and testing and discovery based upon
empirical research, and his commitment as a Christian to the God who has revealed himself
in Scripture and supremely in Christ. Many Christians in academic life, talk about the need to
integrate faith and intellectual life, Mackay made great efforts to effect such integration,
sometimes at considerable personal cost, part of which was the result of occasional
misrepresentation and misunderstanding by fellow-Christians. Mackay believed that such a
view does justice to the biblical data while at the same time making it possible for the
scientist to carry out his God-given task of exploring all physical aspects of the creation
unhindered by false notions. Rosalind Picard: Professor Rosalind W. Picard, Sc.D. is founder
and director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Media Lab and co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, the
largest industrial sponsorship organization at the lab. She has co-founded two businesses,
Empatica, Inc. creating wearable sensors and analytics to improve health, and Affectiva, Inc.
delivering technology to help measure and communicate emotion. Rosalind used to be a
staunch atheist, never liked religious people, still abhor religiosity, and did not want to be
associated with such appearances or with any religious beliefs. According to her a view of
"there is no God" is a philosophical position; it is not a view supported by science. It is a
statement of faith. Being an atheist is a religious position, even if you think you are not
religious. This is a turning point for her to change from an Atheist to a Christian. She argues
“Science is powerful, but it is not all-powerful. Science cannot, for example, validate one-
time historical events that are not under our control to repeat. A different kind of

38
methodology is needed to validate historical events.” To her the strongest evidence in history
is eye-witness testimony and the Bible is the by-product of that amazing testimony. She
firmly states her faith as “I know what it's like to not believe in God, and I know what it's like
to believe in God. I've lived my life both ways. While I cannot scientifically prove either faith
position, I have abundant evidence that I am more fulfilled, more adventurous, happier, and
less stressed in living with belief in God. I also find much greater meaning and purpose in
life.” William D Phillips: William Daniel Phillips, (born Nov. 5, 1948, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,
U.S.), American physicist whose experiments using laser light to cool and trap atoms earned
him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997. He shared the award with Steven Chu and Claude
Cohen-Tannoudji, who also developed methods of laser cooling and atom trapping. He is a
person of religious faith. From his own statement he said “I attend church; I sing in the gospel
choir; I go to Sunday school; I pray regularly; I try to “do justice, love mercy, and walk
humbly with my God.” To many people, this makes me a contradiction—a serious scientist
who seriously believes in God.” Francis Bacon: Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban, also
called (1603–18) Sir Francis Bacon, (born January 22, 1561, York House, London, England
—died April 9, 1626, London), lord chancellor of England (1618–21). A Compiled by:
lawyer, statesman, philosopher, and master of the English tongue, his works are credited with
developing the scientific method, and remained influential through the scientific revolution.
Bacon has been called the father of empiricism. His works argued for the possibility of
scientific knowledge based only upon inductive reasoning and careful observation of events
in nature. Bacon was a devout Anglican. He believed that philosophy and the natural world
must be studied inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of
God. Information on his attributes (such as nature, action, and purposes) can only come from
special revelation. But Bacon also held that knowledge was cumulative, that study
encompassed more than a simple preservation of the past. "Knowledge is the rich storehouse
for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate," he wrote. In his Essays, he affirms
that "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth
men's minds about to religion." Bacon's idea of idols of the mind may have self-consciously
represented an attempt to Christianize science at the same time as developing a new, reliable
scientific method Gabriel Gabrielse: Gerald Gabrielse is an American physicist. He is Board
of Trustees Professor of Physics and Director of the Center for Fundamental Physics at Low
Energy at Northwestern University, and Emeritus George Vasmer Leverett Professor of
Physics at Harvard University. He is primarily known for his experiments trapping and
investigating antimatter, measuring the electron g-factor, and measuring the electron electric

39
dipole moment. He has been described as "a leader in super-precise measurements of
fundamental particles and the study of anti-matter. Gabrielse identifies himself as a scientist
who is Reformed Christian. In an interview, he said: I do not believe that science and the
Bible are in conflict. However, it is possible to misunderstand the Bible and to misunderstand
science. It is important to figure out what of each might be misunderstood. He has also
delivered lectures on the relation between science and religion. In 2006 Gabrielse delivered a
lecture titled "God of Antimatter" in the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, discussing his research into antimatter as well as his personal
experience with Christianity. John Ray: John Ray, Ray (born Nov. 29, 1627, Black Notley,
Essex, Eng.—died Jan. 17, 1705, Black Notley), leading 17th-century English naturalist and
botanist who contributed significantly to progress in taxonomy. His enduring legacy to
botany was the establishment of species as the ultimate unit of taxonomy. He was a devout
Christian, Ray expounded his belief in "natural theology," the doctrine that the wisdom and
power of God could be understood by studying His creation, the natural world. This doctrine
can be traced back to the Bible, but Ray expressed it so fully and clearly that he started a long
tradition of natural theology in England and abroad. As Ray wrote in 1660: There is for a free
man no occupation more worthy and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of
nature and honour the infinite wisdom and goodness of God. In two major works written late
in his life, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation (1691) and Three
Physico-Theological Discourses (1692), Ray expounded his views of the creation,
organization, and eventual fate of the Earth and the life on it. The Wisdom of God Manifested
in the Works of the Creation was especially popular and influential; it was translated into
several foreign languages, and was reprinted for over fifty years after its publication. Francis
Collins: Francis Collins has a PhD in Chemistry and is a qualified physician. Since 2009, he
has been the Director of the National Institutes of Health at Bethesda, Maryland. He has been
a strong protagonist for the Compiled by: privacy of genetic information and prohibiting
insurance discrimination on genetic grounds. He is a member of the National Academy of
Sciences of the US and a recipient of the President Medal of Freedom. Some of his statement
on his religious view being an atheist to a devout Christian "God gave us an opportunity
through science to understand the natural world, but there will never be a scientific proof of
God's existence." “Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7
billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity
over long periods of time.” God’s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the
marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that creative plan

40
included human beings. After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced “house” (the
human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the Moral Law),
with free will, and with an immortal soul. We humans use our free will to break the moral
law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that
estrangement. If the Moral Law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as
good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong
atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview? If God is outside of nature,
then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Atheism itself must therefore be
considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on
the basis of pure reason. John T. Houghton: John T.Houghton was born on 30 December
1931. He is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment working group.
He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at
the University of Oxford, former Director General at the Met Office and founder of the
Hadley Centre. He was brought up, in Wales, as an evangelical Christian by devout Christian
parents and has remained a strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and
Christianity as strengthening each other and believes strongly in the connection between
Christianity and environmentalism. Houghton's evangelical Christianity combined with his
scientific background has made him a significant voice in evangelical Christian circles. He is
currently an elder at Aberdovey Presbyterian Church.

41
4.4 Indian Christian Contributions to Science and Religion.

Name Field Contributions Faith Integration

Dr. Raja Ram Reform and

Advocated scientific Synthesized Enlightenment
Mohan Roy Science
rationality in education ideals with theism
(Hon.) Education

Rev. Nehemiah
Theology and Engaged science-religion Wrote against scientific
Goreh (1825–
Apologetics dialogue in colonial India atheism
1895)

Interacted with modern Advocated for holistic

Dr. C. V. Theologian and
science in theological Christian worldview in
Mathew Educator
education scientific age

Dr. P. T. Theoretical Particle physics, energy Active in science-theology

Thomas Physics studies interface in Indian universities

Process Engaged science-religion Advocated a panentheistic

Dr. Joseph
Theology and in Indian philosophical vision integrating science and
Mattam, SJ
Science context Indian theology

Conclusion: Dialogue, Not Conflict

 The interaction between science and Christian faith is multifaceted, not uniformly
antagonistic.

 Theological traditions have shaped, challenged, and supported scientific

developments.

 Contemporary Christian engagement with cosmology and biology shows mutual

enrichment when each domain is respected for its method and purpose.

42
 UNIT 5: The Biblical Doctrine of Creation

51. Biblical Doctrine of Creation and Creation Ex Nihilo.

A. Biblical Foundation

 Genesis 1:1–2:4a and Genesis 2:4b–25 are two creation narratives presenting
theological rather than scientific accounts.

 Other key creation texts: Psalm 104, Job 38–41, Isaiah 40–55, John 1, Colossians
1:15–20, Hebrews 1, Revelation 4–5.

B. Core Doctrines

 God as Creator: Creation is the act of God’s sovereign will, reflecting divine
wisdom, power, and goodness.

 Creation is Good: The refrain "God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1) affirms
creation’s inherent value.

 Creation is Ordered: The cosmos is intelligible and sustained by divine providence.

C. Creation Ex Nihilo (“out of nothing”)

 Not explicitly stated in Genesis 1:1, but affirmed in:

o 2 Maccabees 7:28, Romans 4:17, and developed in early Christian theology

(e.g., Irenaeus, Augustine).

 Contrasted with:

o Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) myths (e.g., Enuma Elish) where creation is
from pre-existing chaos or conflict.

 Theologically affirms:

o God’s absolute freedom and sovereignty.

o Creation is not eternal or divine (against pantheism or dualism).

Creation ex nihilo is the Christian doctrine that God created the universe and everything in it
out of nothing. He spoke all that exists, besides himself, into existence. For more than two
millennia Christians have confessed in all their creeds that God is the “Maker of heaven and
earth.” The Nicene Creed specifies that this includes “all things visible and invisible.”

43
Compiled by: At the heart of the Christian worldview is the idea that God is the creator of all
other reality; there is a fundamental distinction between Creator and creation. . . . The creedal
affirmations of Christians are but reaffirmations of the first verse of the Bible, which
majestically proclaims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Thomas V.
Morris points out that the biblical doctrine of creation is the key to a distinctively theistic
perspective on reality. He writes, “This one statement captures the heart of a theistic world-
view. We live in a created universe. For centuries, theists have held that the single most
important truth about our world is that it is a created world. And it is no exaggeration to add
that it is one of the most important truths about God that he is the creator of this world.”
Creation ex nihilo distinguishes theism from other worldviews that dominated the ancient
world. It was, in fact, the doctrine of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) that most
fundamentally distinguished the Judeo-Christian view of God and the world from the various
religions of the ancient Near East and philosophical systems of Classical Greece—all of
which assumed that the world had been formed out of eternally preexisting chaotic matter.
This doctrine has profound implications for the world we live in. According to Christian
teaching, it is God’s absolute creation and continuing conservation of the universe that
accounts for its existence, order, rationality, goodness, and beauty. It is because God created
the universe ex nihilo and proclaimed it good that we can be assured that evil is not somehow
part of the fabric of the universe but a parasite that will one day be overcome. And finally, the
scientific method, which has given us the technology that has improved our lives so much,
owes its genesis to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Furthermore, according to many
historians of science, the Christian doctrine of creation played a significant role in the rise
and development of modern science by providing many of its basic presuppositions. It has
been shown that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was one of the reasons the scientific
revolution occurred in Christian Western Europe rather than in the ancient world or some
other culture. It could even be argued that, apart from the presuppositions supplied by the
Christian doctrine of creation, modern science (realistically understood) would be impossible
and that divorcing science from the ground of these presuppositions makes it irrational.

5.2 Biblical Doctrine of Creation, Big Bang Cosmology, and Theory of Evolution.

A. Creation and Big Bang

44
  Big Bang affirms a beginning of time and space, which some Christians correlate with
creation ex nihilo.

 However, the Big Bang is a scientific model, not a theological claim.

B. Creation and Evolution

 Evolution provides a mechanism for biological development, not a denial of divine

creation.

 Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism:

o God uses evolutionary processes in creation.

o Prominent advocates: Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, Deborah Haarsma.

 The biblical doctrine emphasizes who and why, not how creation occurred.

C. Caution Against Concordism

 Concordism = forcing the Bible and science to “match”.

 Biblical texts are theological and literary, not modern scientific descriptions.

Big Bang Cosmology: Most cosmologists today believe that the universe came into being
with the explosion of infinitely dense and infinitely small particles some 10 to 20 billion
years ago. This explosion is popularly known as Big Bang. At that time all the matter in the
universe was packed into a dense mass, at temperature of many trillions of degrees. The
dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot universe led to an explosion of cosmic
hydrogen bombs which marked the birth of the universe. George Lemaitre (1894-1966) a
Belgian Priest, astronomer and Professor of Physics was the one who proposed the famous
Big Bang Theory. According to him the explosion of universe could be traced back to a very
dense state in the distant past in which the primeval atom disintegrate in an explosion giving
rise to space and time and the expansion continues. Theory of Evolution: Theory of Evolution
postulate that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their
origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to
modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental
keystones of modern biological theory. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin.
According to him the origin of species and all living organism is only through mechanism of
natural selection. Natural selection: A Random genetic changes evolved within and organism

45
genetic code. Beneficial changes are preserved Compiled by: because they need to be survey.
This closes known as natural changes. Everything was simply evolved. The complex
creatures evolved from more simple creatures. All lives is related because all organism are
related to single

5.3 Genesis as Ancient Cosmogony.

A. Literary Context

 Genesis 1 is best understood as ancient Near Eastern cosmogony with Israelite

theological distinctiveness.

 Features:

o Structured and thematic (days of forming and filling).

o Use of symbolic numbers (7 = completeness).

o Emphasis on God’s word and sovereignty.

B. Comparison with ANE Myths

 Similarities:

o Use of water, chaos imagery, firmament, etc.

 Differences:

o No violence or theogony (e.g., unlike Enuma Elish).

o Humanity made in God’s image, not as slaves of the gods.

o Sabbath as a theological climax, not the creation of a temple to a deity.

C. Implications

 Genesis teaches a monotheistic, purposeful, and moral cosmos.

 It reflects the worldview of its time but articulates a radically distinct theology.

Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science embedded in it or it
dictates what modern science should look like. This approach is called “concordism,” as it
seeks to give a modern scientific explanation for the details in the text. This represents one
attempt to “translate” the culture and text for the modern reader. If we accept Genesis 1 as

46
ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it
into modern cosmology. John Walton has written this to convince the expert or the informed
theologian. His contention is that, as with the rest of the ancient world, the focus of the
Genesis creation accounts concerns only the functions of the cosmos and has, therefore,
nothing to do with its material origins. Indeed, the creation story is to be interpreted,
according to Walton, strictly in temple terms as a liturgical document, rather than as a
document reporting the actual origins of the cosmos. Analysis of Genesis 1 in order to
determine to what extent the notions observed in ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies are
related to the biblical accounts. Thus “the entire cosmos is viewed as a temple designed to
function on behalf of humanity.” The intersection between Genesis 1 and other ancient Near
Eastern cosmologies, particularly what is shared with or distinct from the Egyptian and
Mesopotamian perspectives. Walton proposes that although Israelite cosmology fits its
geographical and historical environment, it contains no new ideas, especially in regard to its
functional emphasis. The greatest differences between the Israelite and the Egyptian and
Mesopotamian cosmologies, is that the divine and cosmic functions are not related in the
Genesis 1 account the way they are in other parts of the ancient world. The realization that
the Genesis account pertains to functional origins rather than material origins and that temple
ideology underlies the Genesis cosmology. The creation account in the Sumerian text, The
Exploits of Ninurta, focuses on the functions of production (e.g., the creation of herbs, honey
and wine, cedar and cypress trees), which are designed “for you.” The Egyptian Memphite
text of creation states: “He created sleep to end weariness, waking for looking after food . . .
remedies to end illness, wine to end affliction . . . wealth for truthfulness, poverty for
falsehood.” Also in Mesopotamian cosmology “created things are listed by their function,
with the text implying that this functionality is for the benefit of humans”. Biblical is one of
the ancient cosmogony stories. But we cannot claim that creation is the first. Martin Noth
argued that biblical history was written during the time of Babylonian exile. Biblical creation
story was very much influenced by Babylonian, Egyptian creation stories. One example is
Enuma Elish is the Babylonian creation story. Conrod Hyers argues that, Biblical stories not a
natural history but it is cosmogony. John Walton: six days of creation were no about the
material creation but they were about function. For example sun and moon are, to provide the
function of calendar

5.4 Evolution and the Problem of Adam.

A. Theological Problem

47
  How to reconcile evolutionary human origins with the biblical figure of Adam,
especially:

o Original sin.

o Historical fall.

o Human uniqueness.

B. Major Responses

1. Traditional View:

o Adam as a historical individual and biological ancestor of all humans.

o Evolution seen as incompatible.

2. Archetypal View (e.g., John Walton):

o Adam represents humanity corporately or functionally (as priest, king, etc.).

3. Genealogical Adam Hypothesis (e.g., Joshua Swamidass):

o Adam and Eve could be genealogical ancestors (but not necessarily genetic
progenitors) of all modern humans.

4. Non-literal Interpretations:

o Focus on theological meaning of fall and sin, not historical sequence.

o Human rebellion is existential and universal.

Peter Enns, in his book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about
Human Origins he argues that “evolution is “a game changer,” the “general science-and-faith
reconciliation is not adequate because evolution uniquely strikes at issues of the Christian
faith.” Specifically, Enns asserts, “Evolution tells us that human beings are not the product of
a special creative act by God as the Bible says but are the end product of a process of trial-
and-error adaptation and natural selection”. And “if evolution is correct, one can no longer
accept, in any true sense of the word ‘historical,’ the instantaneous and special creation of
humanity described in Genesis”. Enns’ project is very similar to John Walton’s proposal in
The Lost World of Genesis One, situating Genesis as a book that reflects an ancient Near
Eastern cosmology. Thus we shouldn’t expect the Bible to be trying to “teach” any
“scientific” claims about human origins. As Enns constantly emphasizes, “the biblical

48
authors…were only expressing their assumptions about the nature of the cosmos”. So we
should adjust our expectations accordingly. If we do that, Enns concludes, then we’ll find that
what Genesis and Paul teach about human origins Adam Compiled by: doesn’t tread on the
territory of what we know from evolutionary science. The result, he believes, will be peaceful
coexistence. And yet Enns seems to revive a version of it in order to “solve” the
(“perceived”) tension between evolutionary accounts of human origins and the biblical
understanding of human origins. If there was no first Adam, there was no fall. If there was no
fall, there is no truly inescapably sinful condition and so no need for a savior. Jesus as the
Savior of sinful humanity is at the heart of Christianity. Therefore, if evolution is true [i.e., if
there was no first Adam], Christianity is false.

5.5 God of the Gaps and the Problem of Reductionism.

A. God of the Gaps

 The idea of invoking God to explain what science cannot currently explain.

 Problematic because:

o As science advances, God's role is marginalized.

o It limits God’s activity to gaps in knowledge, rather than recognizing God's

continuous action.

B. Reductionism

 Scientific reductionism: Explaining complex phenomena entirely in terms of their

parts (e.g., explaining love as just chemical reactions).

 Methodological vs. Philosophical reductionism:

o Methodological: useful in science.

o Philosophical: problematic when it denies meaning, purpose, or value.

C. Christian Response

 Affirming that God is present in all levels of causality (primary and secondary
causes).

 Avoiding both:

o Supernaturalism as filler (gaps).

49
 o Naturalism as exclusive (reductionism)

The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that
currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the
realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science
is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are
explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.” Science can be explanation
about physical nature in different dimension. At the same time science also so gives
explanation about the physical world. There are areas science cannot explain. There are
certain gap in the scientific explanation about the universe. The theologian and scholars filled
the gaps with God. Henry Drummond argues that “God of Gap to criticize the Christian who
fill the gap created by scientific explanation. Biblical god is not the God of the gaps but the
whole universe is creation is the work of eminent God.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer said “We are to
find God if what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realise his presence
not in unsolved problems but those are solved.” Francis Collins: Intelligent design is guilty of
God of the gaps when naturalist evolution face to explain something it is best explained by
intelligent design. It provides less room for God in this universe. It denies the Omnipresence
of God.

5.6 Models of Science and Religion relation: Ian Barbour (four models), Ted Peters, and
Michael Stenmark.

A. Ian Barbour’s Four Models (widely cited typology)

Model Description

Science and religion are in irreconcilable opposition. E.g., New Atheists vs.
Conflict
Creationism.

Science and religion address different domains (facts vs. values, how vs. why).
Independence
Associated with Stephen Jay Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria”.

Areas of interaction and mutual questioning, especially in ethics, origins,

Dialogue
human nature.

Integration Constructive synthesis: theology informed by science (e.g., theistic evolution,

50
Model Description

natural theology).

B. Ted Peters' Model: Creative Mutual Interaction (CMI)

 Science and theology should engage reciprocally, critically, and creatively.

 Emphasizes methodological openness and theological confidence.

C. Michael Stenmark: Varieties of Relationships

 Stenmark proposes more nuanced categories:

o Thematic

o Explanatory

o Epistemic

o Axiological

 Advocates a plurality of legitimate approaches depending on context.

Conclusion: Toward a Theologically Rich Engagement

 The doctrine of creation must be rooted in biblical theology and informed by

contemporary science, without collapsing either.

 Christian theology offers a vision of a purposeful, contingent, and relational cosmos.

 Healthy engagement avoids both fundamentalism and scientism.

Ian Barbour: Religion in an age of science 1. Conflict: Science and religion are mutually
exclusive, their world views, conclusion are antithetical. For Example: Creationist argued that
scientific theory are false. Evolutionist argued that biblical creation is not scientific. Scientific
materialism argued that matter and energy are only fundamental physical reality. Scientific
knowledge is the reliable knowledge. Biblical literalism says that bible does not any mistake.
2. Independent: both disciplines have contrasting method and different language. Both
disciplines are independent autonomous and separate. Any attempt to relate or integrate
science and religion actually violate the integrate of discipline. Religion well tell us why and
evolution will tell us how the creation is. Both do not work within the boundaries. The

51
problem is they try to cross each other. Compartmentalization of science and religion is not
always possible as we think. 3. Dialogue: Science and religion are Dialogue. There are areas
science and religion can meet and enter into Dialogue. Scientist teach how physical body
function. But the religion may not be tell us. Geneticist how genes works. Ethical theologian
tell us how to genetic (Knowledge). It is not easy science and religion into the table of
Dialogue 4. Integration: both science and religion can contribute one another views,
understanding, thinking and perspective. To integrate the biblical knowledge and scientific
knowledge. Chardin is the one he say God in the process of evolution. Ted Peters: Eight
categories the relationship between science and religion: 1. Scientism: science has the
monopoly on knowledge about nature. Religion provides a pseudo. Religion provides
knowledge about non-existence beings or some fictions or some stories. Fred Compiled by:
hoyle says that “Jews and Christian religion tradition has become outdated because of model
science”. Scientism is always intolerable knowledge of religion. 2. Scientific imperialism:
argue that existence of so called divine. Scientific imperialism plays that the knowledge of
divine reality basically come from the knowledge of scientific research. Scientific knowledge
is superior to divine revelation. Frank Tiplar says “quantum theory combined with big bank
cosmology and thermodynamic can provide a better explanation than Christianity for the
future resurrection of the dead”. Theology should become a brand of physics. Divine
knowledge is comes from the scientific knowledge. 3. Ecclesiastical Authoritarianism: Till
Vatican II, 1962. Church is the custodian of every knowledge including science. Church has
authority over science. After Vatican II church come to point that religion and science are
two autonomous discipline. 4. Scientific creationism: attempts to connect geological data and
biblical data with biblical truth. The biblical truth and scientific truth belong to same thing.
Scientific creationism says that, Creation of the world out of nothing. 5. Two language
theory: basically argued that science and religion provides different direction. Science direct
toward physical world religion direct towards God/spiritual world. Both disciplines are
sovereign territory. Abert Emsteen says that, “science without religion is lame and the
religion without science blank”. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be.
Religion on the other hand deals only with evolution of human thought and action. Langdon
Gilkey says that, science has how? And religion ask why? 6. Hypothetical consonance
(accord): Ernan McMullin says that, there are areas where there is a correspondence between
science and religion. Correspondence can be made between what can set scientific about
natural world. In other words science and religion can bring together. The God question about
nature can be honestly asked within scientific reason. Theologian and scientist basically share

52
common subject matter. There are possibilities of dialogue. Theologian and scientist should
subject there finding or assumption for further explanation or conformation. Openness to
learning is the value which theologian and scientist have to follow the result is peace. 1.
Ethical Overlap: Scientific invention basically lots of ethical challenges. Ethical challenges
are not address. 2. New age spirituality: attempt to use spirituality in science and religion. No
dualism there is no split between ideas and skills. David Bohn- explicit order of things that
we aspect as the natural world and that is studied in laboratories is not the fundamental
reality, there is under and behind it and implicate order a realm of undivided wholeness.
Reality is in flowing movement. The new age spirituality seeks to cultivate the awareness of
these underline and continually changing unity. Stenmark- How to relate science and
religion: A multi-dimensional model: 1. Conservative or reconciliation model: science should
change its content and the tradition Christian faith is very extent as it. Christian faith is right
science should change. 2. Traditional reconciliation model: science has to change some of its
content at the same time religion also change some of its content. But not fully. Three Views
1. The independence view: there is or neither should overlap/intersect between science and
religion. 2. Contact view: there is, there can be and there should be intersect between science
and religion. 3. Monist View: there can be a union of the domains of science and religion.
The moral: Multi-dimensional moral: own view Two premises 1. There is nothing in the
domains of the science that is not domains of the religion. And vice-versa. 2. Science and
religion are social practices: both can understand each other. What is the multi-dimensional
model? Compiled by: We have to go beyond one dimensional picture of science and religion
1. Social dimension: science and religion are performed by people in co-operation within a
particular historical and cultural setting. What is the meaning of practices? A practice is a set
off complex and fairly, coherent socially established co-operative human activities through
which its practitioners try to obtain certain goals by means of particular strategies. 2.
Teleological dimension: we need to see the goals of scientific and religious practices. 3.
Epistemological/Methodological dimension: we need to see the method and developed to
achieve science and religion. 4. Theoretical dimension: We may try to understand the
believes, the story and theory developed by science and religion 5. Since science and religion
are social practices, they are subject to change.

53
 UNIT 6: Science and Miracles
6.1 Towards understanding the meaning of miracles.
A. Definition of Miracle
 Etymology: Latin miraculum — “object of wonder.”
 Classical Theological Definition (Thomas Aquinas):
“A miracle is something done by divine power apart from the order usually observed in
nature.”
B. Biblical Understanding
 In Scripture, miracles are not just supernatural anomalies, but signs (σημεῖα),
wonders (τέρατα), and mighty works (δυνάμεις) that point to:
o God’s sovereignty (e.g., Red Sea crossing — Exod. 14)
o God’s revelation in Christ (e.g., Jesus’ healings — John 9)
o God’s kingdom breaking into history (e.g., resurrection, exorcisms).
 Purpose of Miracles:
o Confirm divine message or messenger (John 20:30–31)
o Demonstrate God’s compassion and justice
o Foreshadow the new creation and final restoration

C. Categories of Miracles
 Nature miracles: Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4)
 Healing miracles: Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10)
 Exorcisms: Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5)
 Raising the dead: Lazarus (John 11)
 Provision miracles: Feeding the five thousand (John 6)

D. Philosophical Interpretations of Miracles

 Augustine: Miracles do not violate nature, but transcend human understanding of it.
 Leibniz: Miracles are not contrary to divine reason, but exceptions to general divine
laws.
 C.S. Lewis: Miracles are not violations but interventions; they are not “anti-
scientific” but “super-natural.”

54
E. Scientific Concerns
 Science operates on the assumption of regularity, repeatability, and causality.
 Miracles are non-repeatable and singular historical events.
 Therefore, science and miracles function in different explanatory frameworks:
o Science = description of nature’s regular patterns
o Miracle = God’s personal action in specific historical moments
Keener, Craig S. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2011. Blomberg, Craig L. Can we still believe the Bible?: An evangelical
engagement with contemporary questions. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014. 1. Towards
understanding the meaning of miracles Miracles are a supernatural work of God. All the
miracles had a purpose—to prove that God is like no one else, that He has complete control
of creation because He is its source, and to convince us that if He can do all these miraculous
things, nothing in our lives is too hard for Him to handle. He wants us to trust Him and know
that He can do miracles in our lives as well. Craig Blomberg opines that Philosophers of
science stressed that the miraculous by definition lies outside the bounds of science because it
cannot be tested or experimentally reproduced in a laboratory. Miracles, in other words,
should not be defined as the violation of the normal laws of nature or of the universe but as
involving their temporary suspension or transcendence. 2. Examination of the case against the
miracles in the Bible Miracles in the Bible came to be doubted or skepticism arises with the
rise of Enlightenment in Europe during the 17th century, this thinking changed dramatically
in the light of about the account of creation, the ten plagues of the Exodus, the day the sun
stood still, or perhaps some of the healing miracles of Jesus and Apostle. Many Philosophers
strongly rejected miracles in the Bible such as Spinoza and Hume vehemently opposed
miracles event in the Bible. Even Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976) tried to ‘demythologise’
the teaching of Jesus by stripping away the miraculous. He went so far as to say: It is
impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and
surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits
and miracles. Miracles should not be excluded a priori from historical research. Neither
science nor philosophy gives us valid reasons for doing so. The only serious objection to the
biblical miracle accounts is the one of literary form. Do they closely enough resemble bona
fide myths or legends to be classified similarly? The closest parallels to New Testament
accounts consistently prove to be post-Christian in origin; very few pre- Christian pagan
miracle stories are at all similar. Old Testament miracles, on the other hand, often postdate
their ancient Near Eastern parallels. Here the closest parallels come in contexts suggesting
that Compiled by: the biblical counterparts are attributing to Yahweh what other people
groups ascribed to numerous different gods. The purpose of the miracle stories is to counter
the suggestion that any god but the Lord of Israel exists; only real events, not just mythical
stories, could accomplish this. Other Old Testament miracles consistently fall into one of just
a handful of categories, making it unlikely that the biblical narratives comprise random,
fictitious accounts of the supernatural inserted into blander stories for sensationalizing
purposes. New Testament miracles most centrally point to the arrival of God’s kingdom and
therefore of God’s king, Jesus the Messiah. The miracles in the Gospels and Acts closely
parallel each other and often find their meaning when one recognizes Old Testament

55
backgrounds as well. It does little good to believe in miracles in Bible times but not to be
open to them—or to any of Paul’s more supernatural gifts of the Spirit—today. Those who
still defend cessationism risk quenching the Spirit (contra 1 Thess. 5:19) and inappropriately
closing themselves and others off from the full range of blessings God might have for them
and from potentially the greatest amount of effective service for his kingdom. Without
swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme and embracing the various abuses of the
charismata or trying to imitate the Spirit’s work in one’s own strength, cessationists really
should cease trying to limit God in how he chooses to work in his world today. It is, in
essence, a form of antisupernaturalism for all the postapostolic eras of Christianity. The
position is inconsistent with belief in a living and active God, amounts to a practical deism,
and smacks of humans trying to usurp God’s sovereignty by dictating what his people can
and cannot do with respect to spiritual giftedness. Oxford scholar G. B. Caird long ago
remarked regarding Luke, the first Christian historian: Luke has often been accused of
credulity because he has packed his narrative with signs and wonders, but it would be more in
keeping with the evidence to commend him for his faithful reproduction of one of the major
constituents of early Christianity. For the Epistles bear their concurrent witness that the
preaching of the Gospel was everywhere accompanied by exorcisms and healing and by other
forms of miracle. Craig S.Keener argues that one should not a priori reject the possibility of
eyewitness testimony behind reports of cures and signs in the Gospels and Acts; whatever
miracles mentioned are purely written from the eye-witness account and no doubt it involved
a divine activity, even if one were to remain skeptical about miracle claims one would not
need to reject the rest of the testimony of the Gospels and Acts regarding other events.
6.2 Examination of the case against the miracles in the Bible.
A. David Hume’s Critique (1748)
 Most influential skeptic of miracles.
 Key arguments:
1. A miracle is a violation of natural law, which is based on firm and
unalterable experience.
2. It is always more rational to disbelieve the testimony of a miracle than to
believe that a natural law was broken.
3. Human testimony is fallible and often arises from ignorance, credulity, or
religious enthusiasm.
 Critique:
o Assumes that natural laws are absolute and unbreakable.
o Ignores historical plausibility and contextual evidence.
o Presumes naturalism, thereby ruling out miracles a priori.

B. Responses to Hume
1. John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure:

56
 o Argues Hume’s logic is flawed; miracles are historical claims, not logical
contradictions.
2. C.S. Lewis, Miracles:
o Points out that Hume begs the question by assuming miracles are impossible.
3. Richard Swinburne:
o Defends miracles using Bayesian probability, arguing that background
knowledge and testimony can make belief rational.

C. Biblical Reliability and Miracles

 The Gospels are ancient Greco-Roman biographies with historical intent.
 The resurrection narratives involve multiple attestation, empty tomb traditions, and
post-mortem appearances.
 Early Christian belief in miracles was grounded in experience, apostolic witness, and
Jewish theological expectations.

D. Natural Theology and Divine Freedom

 If God is the creator of natural laws, God is not bound by them.
 Miracles can be seen not as interruptions, but as acts of freedom within the created
order — akin to an author writing a surprising plot twist without breaking grammar.

3. Theological Significance of Miracles

 Miracles are eschatological signs: they point to the coming Kingdom (e.g., Isaiah
35:5–6).
 They reveal God’s compassion (Mark 1:40–45), authority (Mark 2:10–12), and
identity (John 2:11).
 The resurrection of Jesus is central:
o Not a mere resuscitation, but a new mode of existence, inaugurating the new
creation.
o Paul appeals to the resurrection as historical and bodily (1 Corinthians 15).
Conclusion: Science and Miracles – A Complementary Relationship
 Science explains the normal, miracles testify to the personal and ultimate.
 Christian theology need not conflict with science, but rather locates miracles within a
broader metaphysical framework that includes divine action and purpose.
 Faith in miracles does not deny natural order, but affirms God’s lordship over it.

57
 Unit-7 Emerging Science and Technologies
An introduction to nanotechnology, Biotechnology and Synthetic Life, Robotics, Artificial
Intelligence and Neuroscience.
Nanotechnology: Compiled by: nanotechnology are the study and application of extremely
small things and can be used across all the other science fields, such as chemistry, biology,
physics, materials science, and engineering. The ideas and concepts behind nanoscience and
nanotechnology started with a talk entitled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” by
physicist Richard Feynman at an American Physical Society meeting at the California
Institute of Technology (CalTech) on December 29, 1959, long before the term
nanotechnology was used. In his talk, Feynman described a process in which scientists would
be able to manipulate and control individual atoms and molecules. Over a decade later, in his
explorations of ultraprecision machining, Professor Norio Taniguchi coined the term
nanotechnology. It wasn't until 1981, with the development of the scanning tunneling
microscope that could "see" individual atoms, that modern nanotechnology. Nanotechnology
involve the ability to see and to control individual atoms and molecules. Everything on Earth
is made up of atoms—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the buildings and houses we live
in, and our own bodies. But something as small as an atom is impossible to see with the
naked eye. Today's scientists and engineers are finding a wide variety of ways to deliberately
make materials at the nanoscale to take advantage of their enhanced properties such as higher
strength, lighter weight, increased control of light spectrum, and greater chemical reactivity
than their larger-scale counterparts.
Biotechnology: Biotechnology is technology based on biology - biotechnology harnesses
cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and products that help improve
our lives and the health of our planet. We have used the biological processes of
microorganisms for more than 6,000 years to make useful food products, such as bread and
cheese, and to preserve dairy products. Modern biotechnology provides breakthrough
products and technologies to combat debilitating and rare diseases, reduce our environmental
footprint, feed the hungry, use less and cleaner energy, and have safer, cleaner and more
efficient industrial manufacturing processes. Currently, there are more than 250
biotechnology health care products and vaccines available to patients, many for previously
untreatable diseases. More than 13.3 million farmers around the world use agricultural
biotechnology to increase yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming's
impact on the environment. Biotechnology are broadly designed to heal the world, to feed the
world and to fuel the world. Synthetic Life: Synthetic Life/ biology is the attempt to
reengineer living organisms as if they were machines for us to tinker with, or even to build
them from scratch from the component parts—stems from a decidedly modern construct, a
“reverence for life.” In the past, fears about this kind of technological hubris were reserved
mostly for proposals to make humans by artificial means—or as the Greeks would have said,
by techne. The first identifiable use of the term "synthetic biology" was Stéphane Leduc a
French biologist who sought to contribute to understanding of the chemical and physical
mechanisms of life. Craig Venter once said “Life is basically the result of an information
process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software, and our cells are dynamically,
constantly reading our genetic code.”

58
Robotics: Robotics is an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and science that includes
mechanical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, computer science,
and others. Robotics deals with the design, construction, operation, and use of robots, as well
as computer systems for their control, sensory feedback, and information processing. In 1948,
Norbert Wiener formulated the principles of cybernetics, the basis of practical robotics. There
are many types of robots; they are used in many different environments and for many
different purposes depending upon the potential application and its demand.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science that aims
to create intelligent machines. It has become an essential part of the technology industry.
Research associated with artificial intelligence is highly technical and specialized. The core
problems of artificial intelligence include programming computers for certain traits such as:
Knowledge, Reasoning, Problem solving, Perception, Learning, Planning. Ability to
manipulate and move objects Artificial intelligence (AI) is an area of computer science that
emphasizes the creation of intelligent machines that work and react like humans. Some of the
activities computers with artificial intelligence are designed for include: Speech recognition,
Learning, Planning, Problem solving.
Neuroscience: Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary science that is concerned with the study of
the structure and function of the nervous system. It encompasses the evolution, development,
cellular and molecular biology, physiology, anatomy and pharmacology of the nervous
system, as well as computational, behavioural and cognitive neuroscience. Neuroscience is a
new and important field with implications for every aspect of how people move, think, and
behave. It also contributes to a better understanding of a wide range of common conditions. A
greater understanding of neurological factors can help in developing medications and other
strategies to treat and prevent these and many other health issues.

2. Deterministic Chaos Deterministic chaos, often just called "chaos", refers in the world of
dynamics to the generation of random, unpredictable behavior from a simple, but nonlinear
rule. The rule has no "noise", randomness, or probabilities built in. Instead, through the rule's
repeated application the long-term behavior becomes quite complicated. In this sense, the
unpredictability "emerges" over time. "Deterministic Chaos," suggests a paradox because it
connects two notions that are familiar and commonly regarded as incompatible. The first is
that of randomness or unpredictability, as in the trajectory of a molecule in a gas or in the
voting choice of a particular individual from out of a population. In conventional analyses,
randomness was considered more apparent than real, arising from ignorance of the many
causes at work. In other words, it was commonly believed that the world is unpredictable
because it is complicated. The second notion is that of deterministic motion, as that of a
pendulum or a planet, which has been accepted since the time of Isaac Newton as
exemplifying the success of science in rendering predictable that which is initially complex.

3. Exploration of its implication for human welfare and creation care-ethical Issues. The
Contributions of Science and technology is massive and indispensable to humanity. The
ultimate goal of new inventions, innovative science discoveries and Technological innovation
is the propelling force of Compiled by: the world. We live in an age in which the power of

59
science becomes evident every day. A better quality of life, the advancements in medicine
and public health have doubtlessly contributed to an increase in the life expectancy. Human
beings have a natural instinct to gain more comfort in their life. They want easiest way for
recovery from diseases. They want to travel maximum distance in minimum period. They
want to communicate with each other without making barriers by long distance. They want
good food, clothes, shelter and all other things which make life luxurious. Science and
technological developments are helping human population with many ways. The fast change
in equipment certainly advances the human life The exploration of our genetic patrimony
could be the solution in the near future for the most different public health problems. Explore
means to map the genetic resources, study them, know their properties and applications and
use them in a scientific, rational and equilibrated way. First, however, we have to create
conditions for a better utilization of this relative advantage - our mega-biodiversity -
establishing a policy for regulating the access to and the use of these resources. Research on
the genome of plants, microorganisms and animals, use of fungi with therapeutic action,
recombinant DNA technology, improvement of ex situ conservation techniques for biological
material, cloning of plants and animals. There is a great number of possibilities for a
commercial exploration not only of our biodiversity but also of the knowledge of the
indigenous populations about use and preservation of species. Only this way, abuse resulting
in destruction of the tropical forests can be avoided. It is absolutely necessary to amplify the
debates involving all interested sectors: the academic world, private enterprise, the
government, scientific societies, non-governmental organisms, politicians, the media and
society at large. Applied science seems to be the hit, but we must not forget the fundamental
role of basic research. Today, any policy restraining basic research seems to me as
irresponsible as the repression of basic research at the times of Galileo, little before the
Newtonian revolution. To invest in basic research means to invest in new ideas, new
solutions, and new knowledge and in the continuity of science itself. It is also necessary to
strengthen and amplify the technological development. Using, nanotechnology our ways of
life, our materials at the nano-scale enhance with higher strength and in larger scale.
Biotechnology boost our lives and health. Synthetic life reengineers the living organisms and
bring better understanding of the chemical and physical mechanism of life. Robotics eases in
processing many works, applications in different arena of human welfare. Artificial
Intelligent (AI) are highly technical and specialized which can be used in speech recognition,
learning, planning, problem solving and many more. Neuroscience soothes the nervous
system and help in medication and other strategies of health issues. God has given human
beings the caliber, capacities, potential and a dynamic intelligent to harnessed all these
innovative exploration. We should never implied to rule out God or for playing with the
Creator or deviates from his intentions. We should utilize it to expand the memory given to
us in a harmonize ways with the creation with due care. All these innovations should not
destroy or exploit the creation rather it should enhance and foster the handiworks of the
creator.

60
Unit-8 Critique of Euro-centric Science: Post-Colonial and Feminist Critique
1. Basic Introduction to the Eurocentric and male centric nature of Science with Criticisms from Post-Colonial
and Feminist perspective. Post-colonial critique and Eurocentric Science Post- colonial is a condition of a period
after colonialism. It also refers to a theory and which refers an attitude of position with de-centralised with the
Euro-centrism. A postcolonial critique is a primarily critique of the influence of modern Western science on
other cultures. It is also fit within a broader framework of critiques of Eurocentrism, colonialism and the
construction of the Non-West as other. Within Science, the postcolonial critiques argue that Western Science
has resulted in partial and distorted accounts of nature and social relations. Modern science and technology has
dislocated the so called third world countries and societies, distorted the traditional cultures and played havoc
with the environment of these nations. It has also replaced a way of knowing which is multi-dimensional and
based on synthesis, in these societies with a linear, clinical, inhuman and rationalist mode of thought. The
emergence of post colonial critique of science shows that the Western sciences are just one kind of culturally
specific ‘ethnoscience’ among the many that have existed. According to Sandra Harding, western science which
is simply science for Eurosentrists is conceptualized as fundamentally pure ideas, not as the culturally
determinate institutions and practices that historians, sociologists and anthropologists report. The post colonial
studies of science intent to address such as distortion of ideas in the realm of science. Post- colonialism argues
that Euro-centrism is not the best. Post- colonialism basically means perspectives which explore/highlights the
potential of colonialized. Looking at the reality through the eyes of colonialized. 1. Post- colonial critique argues
that science is multi-faceted socially form embodied knowledge. 2. Science and technology where integral part
of civilising machine of Europe. In other words, Science and technology Dominate and control the colonialized.
This modern science was a partner of colonialized. 3. Some tools: Medicine- was the one of the tools of
colonisation, Steam ships, Guns, Different crops and plants. 4. Modern European science always ignores the
local knowledge. And this modern science actually destroys the local knowledge system. Modern science and
technology basically destroy our knowledge system and expanded the boundaries of their empire.

Joseph Neodham_ Scientific contribution to military, factory, industry, railways, etc.

Sasitharu- Book_ in Glories Empire- the British Empire louted our resources with all the
sophisticated methods and equipment. K.S. RathaKrishna- the statement of Lord Macaulay_
India had no science to worthy to be taught in school or college. Vergirius Xaxa- the
introduction of euro centric communication facilities and transportation basically affected the
life of tribal people. 1. It allowed The entry of non-tribal into tribal light 2. Disposes of tribal
lad and tribal resources Compiled by: 3. Factory based production let to the large scale
exploitation of mineral resources particularly tribal. 4. Euro centric came and encourage to
tribal to cultivate the crops which really need. (shifting cultivation) Frantz Fanon- Settlers
used gun to control the colonist. This gun culture made the colonist violent. Nelson Mandela-
“we are soldiers who will never fight for we have no weapons to fight with” Desmond Tutio-
“we had land after becoming Christians, we have the bible, they have land”. Albert Memmi-
Book_ colonies and coloniser_ in every colonies, coloniser is always privilege.

Feminist critique on Science The feminist discussion of science is part of the whole feminist
movement, done within the walls of feminist discourse. Scholarship on feminist critique on
science emerged in the 1960s and got momentum in 1970s. Feminist of science raise various
questions concerning the androcentric nature of science and scientific research mostly male

61
biases in scientific research. Feminist of science are not happy about science and scientific
development as it is more androcentric with all its biases in favour of men neglecting women
and women issues. Feminist critique mainly argues- exclusion in science, discrimination of
women in science job, the androcentric biases in sciences, western dualism and male science
superiority, lack of women’s contribution in science, negative portrayal of women in science
and a gender free science. Euro- centric science is basically man centric science. Feminist
critique on science exposed the male centre of the science. Women are almost completely
excludes the science.
Some of the Feminist or Scholars on Science and Feminism: Evelyn Fox Keller and Ruth
Hubband- Women are excluded from scientific institution and women participation are very
less in scientific invention and scientific project. Most of the scientific studies are man centre.
In the past women are excluded from higher education. Edward Clark in 1873- women would
ruin their help if they go to college. It will also to damage The western society also thinking
that women are not capable therefore, they cannot do scientific invention. Where were
women in scientific studies? Where is women voice? Sandra Handiy- while accepting the
utility and value of scientific endeavour, scientific judgement are not uninfluenced by
cultural, individual, values and beliefs. Viginia Woolf- science is not sexless he is a man, a
father. David Noble- in the middle ages clericalism envisioned and attempt to maintain a
society without women. Though in the 19th century women were able to enter into academia,
they have to face another clericalism that is a male scientific professionalism. Eco feminist
scholar- modern science and technology to dominate women Vandhana Siva- nature and
women suffer because of modern scientific and technological invention. Marya Mies- women
and nature becomes an object of experiment.

Reflections’: Most of the Feminist critique question objectivity. They argue against one
perspective and one value. It is the myths that women are unfit for science. Why scientific
jobs are given only men rather than women? The ideologies or theories that project women as
inferior or emotional. Compiled by: Feminist perspectives on science therefore reflect a broad
spectrum of epistemic attitudes toward and appraisals of science. These perspectives range
from urging the reform of gender inequities in the institutions of science by calling attention
to the underrepresentation of women or neglected questions while still embracing the
standards and practices of the sciences they engage, to critical and constructive alternative
programs of research that, to varying degrees, aim at transforming the framework
assumptions, methodologies, substantive content, and epistemic ideals that shape the
sciences. Feminist perspectives appear to have had greater impact on sciences that deal with
objects of inquiry that are understood as gendered—those in the social and human sciences—
and, secondarily, on sciences where the objects of inquiry are often characterized in gendered
terms, metaphorically or by analogy (projectively gendered subjects)—chiefly the biological
and life sciences. Feminist perspectives are relevant to sciences that deal with non-gendered
subject matters, but perspectives vary substantially in content and in critical import
depending on the sciences and the particular research programs they engage. Science is
conventionally understood as objective in the sense that scientific work and the results of that
work are free of contextual/non-epistemic values, i.e., moral, social, or political values.
Feminist philosophers of science have offered alternative accounts of objectivity in order to
explain how science that incorporates feminist values can be better, more objective, science.

62
They do so with the aim of giving accounts that are empirically adequate to the case studies
as they stand, without excessive rational reconstruction. This focus on case studies also calls
for alternative analyses of how objectivity is understood. We have reviewed a variety of
alternative approaches that use feminist empiricism and feminist standpoint theory. In
summary, feminist perspectives on science arise from concerns to improve the lives of all
who are affected by gender inequity by encouraging and using better understandings of the
natural and social worlds. In a world dominated by the dualities of victors and victims,
oppressors and the oppressed, haves and have-nots, the strong and the weak, producers and
consumers, creators and beneficiaries, the powerful and the powerless, there will never be a
spirit of harmony, even in such a collective and purely intellectual enterprise as science.

63
 Unit-9 Indian Christian Contribution to Science and Religion Interaction
1. An introductory survey of some pioneer Indian contributors to the field of science and
Religion.
Science and Religion conflict, contrast and problems touches every people all over the world
which confront Indian people also. So, Indian Christian can no longer ignore the gravity of
the issues. A number of Catholic theologians are deeply and seriously involved in the
dialogue between Science and Religion. In some of their institution they have science and
religion studies, Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, JDV (Pontifical Institute of Philosophy and
Religion), Pune is one such institutes which gives effort to the study of the interaction
between science and religion. Let’s discuss the contributions to science and religion by Indian
philosophers of science.
Kuruvilla Pandikkattu, a well-known scholar in the field of science and religion dialogue and
Professor of Philosophy, Science and Religion at JDVidentifies few challenges faced by
science and religion in Indian context.
Three main challenges that face science and religion interaction Compiled by: 1. The divine
between religion and science in freeing ideas. There is no need for dialogue. 1.1. Religious
elements are involved in Indian science. Ex. Ayurveda. 2. Science has nothing to offer which
Indian religion have not discover earlier. 3. Dualistic view holds that religion and science are
two independent domain which cannot interact. Dualistic view science and religion are
different. Ex. For Indian realm of ultimate reality Paramarthika and other realm is practical
level vyavabarika Both science and religion are at the service of humanity. For him nurturing
life is the starting point between science and religion interaction, it is approachable but never
attainable. Kuruvilla arguments: - - He says that, religion can teach humanity about basic
value of life. Science can make human life easier.
Why should we need Science and Religion? (Kuruvilla) 1. Science and Religion can help us a
renewed vision of God and human. 2. Science and Religion interaction can go beyond
absolutisation and redaction. Religion can teaches the value of human life. Science and
Religion helps us to know that what we know about Science and Religion. 3. Dealing the
spirit and body respectful. Soul is fact and soul is precious. Matter and soul is integral part of
reality. 4. Learning respecting the autonomy of both disciplines.
Four main values of Science and Religion 1. Acknowledge 2. Accommodate 3. Accept each
other 4. Affirms each other Key movements a Science and Religion dialogue 1. Admire: the
arguments of science. 2. Advice: to inculcate right steps 3. Admonish: to correct 4. Advance:
to move forward.

Job Kozhamsthadam- Science and religion dialogue, challenge and opportunities

One of the best known among Indian Christian in Science and Religion dialogues is Job
Kozhamthadam, a Professor of Philosophy of Science in JDV. His whole idea in science and
religion dialogue can be summarized as “Constructive Collaboration”. He says Science and
Religion should not be adversaries attacking each other. But they can and should comrades
collaborating in a common cause. A correct and unbiased understanding of the nature and the
ideals of science and religion will reveal that the relationship between the two should be one

64
of constructive collaboration aimed at satisfying the human quest for explanation and
understanding and at helping quest of human into total and integrated persons. Science and
religion are two living dynamic discipline. Therefore, they cannot remain the same. Science
and religion are subject to change. This change can happen through meaningful and. This
relationship or dialogical relationship can take these two disciplines into another level of new
experiment and producing Compiled by: new knowledge. Both Science and religion is
brought for the betterment of human being. While engaging the dialogue both Science and
religion must be aware of their limitation.
Many Jesuit missionary and protestant missionary were not simply missionary, there were
also scientist. 52 plants are named after Jesuit missionary and their great contributions in
science was undeniable.
William carry- Botany and agriculture-1st person who published first scientific text book in
India. He is basically scientist.
John Mack- he was accomplished chemical science. These missionary never felt that science
is an enemy of religion. Agriculture research was one of the interesting areas of result of their
pastoral concerns. Allahabad agricultural institute was started with the pioneering works of
missionaries.
P. Chenchiah- He reveals by creation… God sense atom, but does not sent with it a treatise
on physics and chemistry. At a closer looks, science and religion are nor incongruent as it has
been proclaimed by thinkers such as William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and a number
of Atheistic rationalists of the nineteenth century.
The Historical instances of conflict between science and religion were shallow and mainly
due to incorrect or limited understanding of both science and religion. A number of Scientists
who had deep theological conviction were of the opinion that science and religion are not
enemies, this includes Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.

65