The document discusses various methods of arriving at an understanding of Christianity and its relationship with science. It examines religious explanations for the origin of the universe and human life, as well as scientific explanations such as the Big Bang theory and evolution. Both perspectives are presented, along with arguments for and against each view. The document aims to provide a balanced overview of the key issues in the debate between religion and science regarding origins.

1. Christianity: Belief & Science
Revision

2. AREA 1:
METHODS OF ARRIVING AT HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
Revelation of God’s Nature: God showing who he is by what he
does through:
Scripture
General Revelation
Special Revelation
Traditions of the Church
Religious Experience
Order & Design

3. Revelation of God through Scripture (Bible, Old & New
Testaments)
Divinely inspired or guided
Literal, symbolic or a mixture of both
Can be read by anyone and if taken literally you don’t have
to guess at what God wants
Is a complicated text and has been written by human hands
that may have influenced meanings

4. General Revelation
Can be seen through:
Creation
Deliverance from suffering e.g. Exodus of Jews
Awareness of his presence, conscience?
Only have to look around at beauty & order and the power
that must have created it
Doesn’t have had to have been ‘God’
There is a lot of violence in existence

5. Special Revelation
God becoming human in form of Jesus
Visions, dreams, appearances, miracles etc.
Jesus was ultimate revelation with God’s message
Miracles etc. point to power over laws of physics
What other explanation can there be?
Jesus was simply a good man – there is no proof he was God;
maybe he only thought he was
Miracles etc. are just exaggerated stories or things that were
misunderstood at the time due to lack of scientific knowledge
People hear voices all the time – it doesn’t have to point to
God

6. Revelation through the Traditions of the Church
Beliefs and practices of a particular branch of Christianity
The Church has kept its traditions for 2000 years
The people in the Church have been ‘called’ to represent God
The Church has changed over time and leadership has never
been stable; it is mixed up with politics & culture of history
The people in Church are only ‘human’

7. Revelation through Religious Experience
People have claimed to experience numinous; either sudden flash
or slow realisation
People have found meaning in major life events
Claims of seeing visions, angels or having messages delivered in
dreams; or just the feeling of an awareness
The experiences are life-changing
People describe them as very real
Happen unexpectedly
There is a history of them happening
Peoples lives change all the time, doesn’t mean its due to God
Some experiences have led to negative things e.g. cults
Why are they random and relatively few?
Illness, drugs or a heightened state of emotion alters the
chemistry of the brain producing strange reactions

8. Revelation through Order and Design
Universe is just right for its purpose
Universe is ordered and has regularity
The vastness and complexity of the world points to a designer
– God
The beauty & order points to a loving God
Why does the universe need a creator and if so why did it
have to be God? Who created him if this is the case?
Nature is full of violence and suffering e.g. natural disasters &
animals having to kill to survive

9. Why is Revelation Important in Christianity?
We cannot understand our purpose in life if we don’t
understand God’s message
This not only affects us now but also in the afterlife
God doesn’t need to reveal himself but we are obviously
important to him
He always has and always will reveal himself
All arguments are open to debate & interpretation
The ‘evidence’ is not very strong – why isn’t he more direct?
How much is true and how much has been edited by human
hands?

10. Sources of Human Understanding: Scientific Method
Experiment
Observation
Hypothesis
Research
Verification or falsification
Generalisation
Prediction
Theory or law
Paradigm
All should allow replication
Uses inductive method: observations  theories  laws
Theories are never proven only supported.

11. Scientific method (cont.)
It does not ‘hold on’ to beliefs but welcomes new evidence
whether it supports or rejects previously held laws or paradigms
It changes theories to fit the evidence – not changing the
evidence to fit the theory.
Takes into account all possibilities
Other people can test and verify or falsify hypotheses
Leads to laws/theories that cover similar occurrences
We can never be sure we have covered all possibilities
Exact replication may not be possible and findings are always
open to interpretation
Every apparently similar occurrence may not be covered

12. The scientific method is a way to test our ‘common sense’
understanding of things.
This is done using the deductive method i.e. what we see usually
leads to assumptions. E.g.
people believed the world was flat; science showed it wasn’t.
complexity & wonder of nature shows that God designed it;
science gives an alternative theory
The Full Moon Effect (people’s behaviour changes); science has
found no evidence to support this
Common sense based on actual experience
Deductive reasoning can save us ‘reinventing the wheel’
Common sense approaches are often not up to date
People are not always open to common sense being challenged
Deductive reasoning only works if your assumptions are correct
so not as effective as inductive reasoning

13.  Scientific Method is open to verification & falsification.
 Laws have been changed over time and will continue to do
so as more evidence is uncovered
 Science can only verify or falsify things within its scope
 Verification is based on proper scientific enquiry
 Suitable scientific tests are devised to test hypotheses
 It gives reliable ways to understand the universe
 Evidence is open to interpretation
 Some things are outwith scientific scope
 Some would argue we need mystery in our lives

14. Scientific Models
Science uses models to understand difficult concepts
They can predict results in the absence of hard evidence
Can lead to tried and tested paradigms on which further
testing can be based
However good a model is it is not the real thing
Predictions are always open to interpretations
Some scientists find it hard to accept challenges to cherished
paradigms

15. Scientific Objectivity
Scientists are objective meaning their views are based on solid
evidence
Objectivity safeguards against scientists ‘twisting’ evidence
Evidence is always open to interpretation
It is extremely difficult to remain 100% objective. Some great
scientists have followed their ‘gut feelings’ with success.

16. Scientific Method Summarised
It is based on rigorous, methodical approach where the ‘truth’
is based on best evidence available
Evidence always remains open to challenge and change if
necessary
It is the most reliable way of explaining the world around us
It has flaws which could mean unreliable or misinterpreted
theories
Can lead to competing claims and scientists are not as open
to change as they might think
It is limited in what it can explain

17. Some Christian responses to the Scientific Method
Ordinary people can’t always understand scientific theory
The meaning of life comes from our own actions
Science is anti-religion
Science provides power & knowledge that is too much for
humans to handle
It makes humans think they are God
Scientific method is full of flaws so we should be wary
Scientists’ own beliefs affect their results
A lot of scientific evidence is circumstantial not ‘real’
Science involves interpretations, assumptions and leaps of
logic and this weakens the scientific method.

18. Some Scientific Materialist Responses to Religious Belief
Religion is a dangerous delusion
It holds humanity back
Religion relies on blind faith
Religion is not open to questions and challenges
The contradictions and illogical things in the Bible point to it
just being a story
Religious belief is extremely subjective especially religious
experiences which cannot be tested
Revelation is confusing, unclear, contradicts itself and is not
consistent, making it unreliable

19. Acceptance of Both Revelation and Scientific Enquiry
Religion and science do not need to try and contradict each
other; they are just different ways of understanding (NOMA)
Belief in God requires faith not evidence; not blind faith but
faith supported by reason and teachings
Religion doesn’t have to be tested just accepted
Some people believe that religion lets them understand
spiritual questions and science physical ones (NOMA)
Not everything can be tested so belief/faith fills that gap
There is evidence for religious claims if you are prepared to
accept it but it doesn’t necessarily mean a scientific explanation
is wrong.
Maybe God ‘does’ science too so the theories can complement
each other rather than contradict.

20. Area 2: God Created the Universe
Literal Understanding
God is the creator of everything
As in Genesis 1
If its in the Bible it is true
God has special powers
The Bible is a book of faith not science
Requires only faith to understand
Can be accepted as it is with no need of interpretation or
analysing
Doesn’t take into account scientific evidence that contradicts it
It is so simple it rejects the intelligence God gave man
If Genesis is to be taken literally then so should everything else in
the Bible some of which isn’t acceptable today

21. Symbolic Interpretation
It may be true but in a symbolic way
God’s special powers are portrayed in ways we can understand
By matching the religious claims with that of science it can still
be a book of faith
God is the creator but the ‘story’ is symbolism & myth
Allows explanation of things in a more believable way
Allows the use of God-given intelligence
Accepting some of scientific explanations prevents getting to a
point where faith & science clash

22. Aquinas’s Cosmological (First Cause) Argument
Thomas Aquinas (1224 – 1274) argued
Everything has a cause
Every cause has a cause
This cannot go back forever
There must have been an uncaused cause to start the chain
That can only be God
Therefore God must have been the First Cause
Everything is contingent (relies on something else)
God isn’t contingent, God is a necessary being
God created everything out of nothing (ex nihilo)

23. Accepting the First Cause Argument
It is a matter of faith
Does away with the need that everything goes back in time
infinitely
The Argument fits in with what most Christians already believe
God is a special case so he doesn’t need a cause

24. Rejecting the First Cause Argument
You can’t say everything needs a cause except God. If that is the
case why can’t you say the universe doesn’t need a cause?
Quantum physics has shown some things do appear without a
cause; this would do away with the need for an uncaused cause
i.e. God
By saying God is the cause of all causes means there is an even
bigger creator than him which makes the problem worse
Even if the universe was created why does if have to be the
Christian idea of God?
Maybe it was God but what’s to say he is still around?

25. Religious Explanations of the Origin of the Universe Summary
It is based on ‘evidence’ from the creator himself
Gives a simple & understandable account of universe’s origins
Gives a meaning & purpose to life
Suggests a creator that cares for us
Its based on belief only, with no scientific support
Uses texts and philosophical arguments that are open to
interpretations

26. The Big Bang Explains the Origin of the Universe
At this instant, matter, time, energy and space were created
It does not require a creator – it ‘created’ itself
It has evidence to support the theory:
•Expanding Universe which implies an explosive beginning
•Cosmic Background Radiation; the radioactive ‘heat’ is what
scientists would expect to find from this type of ‘explosion’
•Relative Abundance of the Elements: the materials present and
the quantities they are in are also what scientists would expect
to find
The search for the ‘initial conditions’ still continue

27. There is strong evidence to support the theory from a variety
of scientific fields
It offers a balanced & reasoned explanation for something
that happened when no-one was around to witness it
Much of the evidence is circumstantial (inferred) not
empirical
It is so complex it is difficult for ordinary people to
understand
Gives no explanation of purpose & meaning of life

28. Some Christian views on the Big Bang
The Big Bang theory is wrong; there is no mention of it in the
Bible
It is based on assumptions & interpretations which might be
wrong
There is contradictory evidence in science
Supporters of Intelligent Design argue there is scientific
support for the belief in creation by God

29. Some scientific materialists views on religious belief of
creation
The Big Bang theory is right and will be backed up by further
evidence in the future
Interpretations of evidence are not ‘blind’; they use reason & logic
The theory isn’t perfect but the best we have
The Genesis account is not scientifically valid
It removes the need for a creator

30. Both Can Contribute To Understanding Of Origins Of
Universe
The NOMA argument suggests you can believe in both
Science explains the physical, religion the spiritual
Creation by God is outside science’s scope
Christians can accept the Big bang theory if they do not
understand Genesis literally
God may have started the Big Bang and science can explain it
from there

31. God created Human Life
As described in Genesis 1 & 2: Adam & Eve made in God’
likeness, disobeyed god & banished from Garden of Eden
Literalists believe this word for word
Therefore Earth is only a few thousand years old
Liberalists believe it is a metaphor and allegory and only has
symbolic meaning
Therefore relates to spiritual not physical matters

32. Paley’s Teleological Argument or Design Argument
Proposed by William Paley (1743 – 1805)
As a watch is created by an intelligent designer so too must
the whole universe
The universe is too complex and complicated for it to have
happened by chance (Anthropic Principle)
That creator could only be God
Therefore God must exist and he created the universe
Intelligent Designer?

33. Accepting the Teleological ( or Design) Argument
The conditions on earth are just right for life
Such precise conditions are unlikely to have happened by
chance
It must have had a designer
The logical conclusion is the designer is God

34. Rejecting the TeIeoIogical Argument
Maybe it was designed but maybe it wasn’t the Christian God
Maybe it was a team of ‘Gods’
It begs the question ‘Who designed God?’
Why did the universe need a cause if God didn’t?
Maybe the laws of physics are ‘God’?
The universe & earth are by no means perfect; sustainment of
life requires the death of other plants and/or animals. How does
this point to an intelligent designer?
Luck rather than order seems to reign; there is no order in
natural disasters. They are random acts causing suffering to
innocent people.
The anthropic principle says the conditions have been made
perfect for life. It is the other way around - life is here because of
the conditions.

35. Human Life Emerged as a Result of the Process of Evolution
A living thing depends on fitting its environment to survive
e.g. climate, food source
Those which adapted survived (through random mutation)
These adaptations were passed on through the genes to next
generations to ensure survival
Nature selects those fit for survival
If the environment changes only those who can adapt to the
change can survive to pass on the genes
This is natural selection
Darwin had a lot of evidence for this theory e.g. fossil evidence
& geographical diversity (different environments showing
different adaptions for survival)
Everything that is alive today (10% of all known species) has
adapted to environment as it is now – any changes to
environment means these will have to adapt again to survive

36.  Darwin’s theory was based on circumstantial evidence but
has since been backed up by discoveries in DNA
 DNA mutates randomly; when this mutation is beneficial to
a living thing it increases its chance of survival
 DNA is major driving force behind evolution
 DNA & natural selection is therefore a ‘blind’ process that
doesn’t require a creator
 Life began in a primordial soup where inorganic elements
somehow became organic
 Humans evolved through the same process meaning we
share origins with other primates
 Therefore human life is just another life form

37.  Darwin meticulously researched his theory using different
disciplines such as biology & geology
 Provides a working explanation of what we can see such
as biodiversity & similarities between species as well as
explaining extinction
 Supported by recent discoveries such as DNA
 Since it is a ‘blind’ process there is no need for God and
therefore an explanation for God’s origins
 Much of Darwin’s theory is circumstantial & inferred which
leaves it open to interpretation
 There are gaps in the theory such as incomplete fossil
records
 Doesn’t answer the meaning & purpose of life

38. Interpretation 1: The Bible’s Creation Story is Right
The Bible creation story is true therefore humans didn’t evolve
It is based on belief & faith and rejects science
Some Christians accept Genesis as symbolic. It is not a scientific
explanation but as a way to explain what human life is for
It is clear – if the Bible says its true then it is true
It gives answers to the meaning & purpose of life
Uses the truth in the bible to back up the truth in the Bible – a
circular argument open to debate
Does not take any scientific evidence into account

39. Intelligent Design
Supporters of Intelligent Design argue that there
is scientific evidence supporting creation of
human life by God, e.g. irreducible complexity.
There is a strong scientific basis for Intelligent Design
Does away with the need to use only the Bible to support God as
the creator
Suggests credible alternatives to the flaws in Darwinism
Scientific argument is complex and could be beyond ordinary
people including Christians
Implies the Bible story is not enough
Still doesn’t prove the Christian idea of God created life. Leads
back to ‘who designed God?’ Schoolboy Objection

40. Interpretation 2: Evolutionary Theory (ET) is Right
Scientific materialists (SM) argue that the evidence for ET is
vast
It’s the best explanation even if its not perfect
SM reject theories of ID e.g. even if theory of ID are correct it
doesn’t prove God was creator
SM say ID is ‘bad science’ or science interpreted in a way to
suit their theory i.e. one already based on a creator, God

41. Interpretation 3: Both Revelation & Theory of Evolution
Contribute to Understanding of the Origin of Universe
Some people accept both at the same time
Evolution may be the mechanism God used to create &
regulate life on earth
ET can answer physical aspects & Revelation the meaning &
purpose of life
Both believe life is valuable and should be cherished