Only if Christians can be trusted in areas scientists know, will they be trusted in areas scientists don’t know.

While I was studying for a nuclear physics degree, our research team used particle accelerators that ran 24/7. When I asked for Sabbaths off, my professor went out of his way to make accommodations. As a result, I was often asked about Adventist beliefs. I would give a list of doctrines; the questioner would listen politely, and that would be the end of it. How could I have done better?

In my current geology research on plate tectonics, radiometric dating, and granitic rocks, I find that the Bible origins story is not easily confirmed by science. Creationists have many suggestions, but they require research to see if they fit the data; or the difficulty may be that origins issues have to do with one-time events, rather than ongoing processes. Either way, creationists do not have a better scientific model, so what does one tell scientific colleagues who ask questions about this?

After recently being questioned about my willingness to do apologetics, I wrote a lengthy response outlining my lifelong goal of sharing Jesus, Christianity, and the Adventist message. Here is some of that thinking about how and what to share.

POOR APPROACHES TO SHARING

First, how should sharing not be done? In trying to win people today, we are tempted to use the methods that Jesus resisted in the wilderness:¹ working a miracle to supply a need by turning stones into bread, using mystery to manipulate and dazzle by jumping off the temple, and appealing to the force of authority to provide certainty by ruling with power. Jesus resisted giving those kinds of signs and wonders that people wanted (John 4:48).²

Counterproductive approaches include sharp arguments, condemning wrong ideas, and presenting the most objectionable features first; instead, even the bitterest opponents should be treated with respect and deference.³ The secular community believes it is “conservative dogmatic religion that does the harm” and is responsible for “the long cruel story of crusade and jihad and inquisition and pogrom.”⁴ A “Christian turned atheist turned follower of Christ” has suggested five ways not to interact with atheists: Attack science; tell them they don’t have morals; throw a cliché; ignore their insights; and debate with them.⁵ The term sharing implies a better approach than apologetics because it de-emphasizes arguing.

Sharing does not require saying everything (see Isaiah 53:7). For several reasons, Jesus requested the healed leper to be silent.⁶ After Peter’s confession, Jesus enjoined silence because there was so “false a conception of the Messiah that a public announcement of Him would give . . . no true idea of His character or His work.”⁷ The three disciples who saw Jesus’ transfiguration were not to share the experience with others for it “would excite only ridicule or idle wonder.”⁸ God is not mentioned in the Book of Esther, and she did not reveal her Jewish heritage, yet she was faithful. The Waldenses secretly carried Bibles and shared the gospel only with those they trusted.⁹

A story in Humble Apologetics¹⁰ illustrates the possibility of winning the battle but losing the war. A Christian student on a secular campus worried that an invited Christian apologist would embarrass Christianity. After the speaker’s lecture, a skeptic ranted out a question. The speaker backed him into a corner with return questions that made him appear a fool. The Christian student was pleased that the “Lord’s champion” had triumphed, until he overhead one woman say to another on the way out, “I don’t care if the speaker is right. I still hate his guts.” Winning people is more important than winning arguments.

A BETTER WAY

Although the isolation of and condemnations by John the Baptist have a place,¹¹ there may be a better way. “We draw people to Christ not by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it.”¹²

In his essay on “Christian Apologetics,”¹³ C. S. Lewis wrote that “[s]cience twisted in the interests of apologetics would be sin and folly” and defending doctrines in debate is “spectral” because it rests “on oneself.” A Christian may do much more by writing “a good popular book on any science” than by direct apologetics. Late in life, Lewis “abandoned the apologetic approach” and “turned to storytelling . . . to convey great spiritual truths” that can steal “past watchful dragons.”¹⁴ He said Christianity is not “an argument which demands your assent, but . . . a Person who demands your confidence” because belief in a theory is proportional to the evidence, but trust in a person is based on experience.¹⁵ Similarly, Kierkegaard talked about reason, plus a leap to faith,¹⁶ and Chesterton said: “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”¹⁷

In Athens, Paul used logic and philosophy. After finding that it produced few results, he decided to avoid elaborate arguments in Corinth.¹⁸ There he didn’t use “enticing words of man’s wisdom,” but “determined not to know anything among [them], save Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:1‒5, KJV). Paul used “a more excellent way” with the greatest being love (1 Corinthians 12:31; chap. 13).

Personally, I find Jesus’ methods described in The Desire of Ages as the best guide to sharing. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made no “direct attack on the errors of the people,” but “taught them of something infinitely better.”¹⁹ “Men may combat and defy our logic . . . but a life of disinterested love is an argument they cannot gainsay.”²⁰ In His treatment of Thomas, “Jesus did not overwhelm Thomas with reproach, nor did He enter into controversy with him. He revealed Himself to the doubting one.”²¹

I learned the better way from my wife. During college, I used the scientific method to decide on a wife. I made a list of attributes along the left side of a paper and a list of available young ladies across the top, then filled in the squares. I weighed the options, decided who to marry, asked her on dates, and proposed. The scientific method worked well, for we have now been married 40 years; however, I have learned since then that more than evidence and reason are needed.

The better way is much bigger than having a better scientific model, or proving we are right, or baptizing more people.²² The goal is sharing a better picture of a Christ-like God: a powerful God who does much more than humans can explain and a good God who is trust-worthy in the face of evil.

A POWERFUL GOD MEANS A BIGGER PICTURE

God’s creation is fascinating and powerful and often reinterpreted in bigger ways by science. Cosmology progressed to heliocentrism and the expanding universe. Physics was revolutionized by relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory. Geology has been transformed by the universal explanatory power of plate tectonics.

As knowledge advances, pure materialism is seen to be increasingly insufficient. Mathematics has Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. The new physics loses complete determinism, objectivity, and reductionism. The Big Bang²³ and the second law of thermodynamics²⁴ point to a beginning and a “Beginner.” The fine-tuned physical constants seem to indicate a universe designed for life.²⁵ Complex biological design suggests the need for a “Designer.”²⁶ Human consciousness expressed in self-awareness and free choice implies a “Greater Consciousness.”

A student of mine from South Africa was attracted to science and drifted away from church in his teenage years; however, he found science to be cold, with no answers about suffering and purpose. He returned to God because of a Messianic Jewish scientist²⁷ who presented a seminar on the fine-tuning of the universe and the unlikelihood for evolution of life.

Materialists know how things work, but not why. Early on, Charles Darwin enjoyed poetry, Shakespeare, music, and scenery, but later became just a machine for grinding laws out of facts. Vladimir Lenin couldn’t endure flowers and music because they made him want to say kind, stupid things.²⁸ Something more is needed―purpose and meaning and goodness, not just hopeless chance. The evil needs fixing, with a happy ending, not annihilation.

Job realized the bigger picture after God questioned him about nature (Job 42:3). God told Isaiah, “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways” (Isaiah 55:9, KJV).²⁹ “Just how God accomplished the work of creation He has never revealed to men; human science cannot search out the secrets of the Most High.”³⁰ “[I]nfinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated . . . [they] break down before the magnificence of the thought.”³¹

Christianity provides more options, third options: neither publican nor Pharisee (Luke 18:9‒14), prodigal son nor elder brother (Luke 15:11‒32), idolatry nor rigid rules,³² neither over wicked nor over righteous (Ecclesiastes 7:16, 17). It was neither Job’s wife who said to curse God and die (Job 2:9), nor his friends who defended God, but Job whom God commended (Job 42:7). Job said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him” (Job 13:15, KJV).

Christianity broadens life and expands endeavors. There is nothing wrong with ambition to “stand upon the summit of intellectual greatness.” Young people should “Aim high, and spare no pains to reach the standard.”³³ Well-educated secular people will not be satisfied with god-in-a-box³⁴ or a creed claiming to have all the answers. They are curious, open to learning and growth, with wide-ranging interests.

As Jesus used parables from everyday life, popular culture today can illustrate the bigger Christian perspective to secular friends. Carl Sagan’s book³⁵ and movie Contact reveal the scientist’s search for something more. After reading Milton’s Paradise Lost, Mary Shelley wrote the classic Frankenstein about his created monster that showed the dangers of science. The Giver³⁶ and resulting 2014 movie illustrate the problems of a society without freedom or feelings. One geology colleague recommended “Story of Your Life,”³⁷ the basis for the 2016 movie Arrival, about time and free will and determinism. At the end of a geology field trip in Scandinavia, my colleagues discussed at length a New York Times bestseller in which the author humorously described his attempt to obey the Bible literally.³⁸

The Sabbath symbolizes all this: God is the Lord of time. God is all-wise, so we worship on the seventh day, even without understanding exactly how He created during seven days. We worship the Creator, not the creation or creature.³⁹ We can rest from trying to explain the creation and Flood scientifically. A personal God set aside a time to be with us out of love, not forced from fear.

A GOOD GOD MEANS A BLESSING TO SOCIETY

Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, and the entire Hebrew people were to be a blessing among the nations.⁴⁰ “Christ’s method alone will give true success. . . . [He] ministered to their needs, and won their confidence”⁴¹ and “reached the hearts of the people by going among them as one who desired their good.”⁴² Paul said that he became all things to all men, that he might by all means save some (see 1 Corinthians 9:19‒23).

Building bridges using the “salt model” is an alternative outreach to the “fortress model.”⁴³ We can present a caring God in the face of evil, a safe, welcoming, and grace-filled community in the face of failure, and science in service to make the world a better place. Questions will come based on lifestyle. The notorious atheist, Christopher Hitchens, said of his friendship with an evangelical Christian, “If everyone in the United States had the same qualities of loyalty and care and concern for others that Larry Taunton had, we’d be living in a much better society than we do.”⁴⁴

The scientist Christian will be a responsible, dependable colleague, using caution with the evidence, especially about origins:⁴⁵ Don’t expect science to prove the Bible. Be slow to invoke God’s use of fiat over process. Be slow to judge the scientific community as particularly sinister or biased. Work within mainstream scholarship, and publish your research. Problems with the standard model don’t automatically mean your alternative is better. Test creationist ideas against the data from nature, and claim only what can be supported from the data. Work toward a constructive big-picture model, rather than attacking scattered features in existing models. Only if Christians can be trusted in areas scientists know will they be trusted in areas scientists don’t know.⁴⁶

Virtuous Minds⁴⁷ outlines what it means to love God with all the mind (Matthew 22:37): Courage to give a hearing to deeply threatening ideas. Fair-mindedness to consider other possible explanations. Curiosity beyond the shallow or simplistic answer. Honesty of presentation without distortion or manipulation. Humility measured against an infinite, all-knowing God.

“[T]he last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.”⁴⁸ It is not the “theological truth” of “bigoted religionists,” but the “genuine truth as made manifest in life.”⁴⁹ The everlasting gospel for the world (Revelation 14:6) includes the story of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet (Matthew 26:6‒13). The hour of judgment (Revelation 14:7) is based on how we treat the least among us (Matthew 25:31‒46). Jesus used the Sabbath for healing⁵⁰ and he is concerned with how people are treated (Isaiah 58). The Elijah message is part of the final message about restored relationships (Malachi 4:5, 6).

LESSONS FROM MY LIFE

A well-known geologist I met at a 2011 conference in Spain wanted to collaborate on our granite research in Peru. After finding my name connected to creationists on the Web, he had second thoughts; however, after a visit and sharing my CV with many nuclear physics publications, he was satisfied. Since then, we have talked about Galileo, theodicy, the 2016 U.S. election, Sabbath rest, the complex geologic record, and church leaders. He emphasizes that I should study God through both the book of nature and the Bible, and that Jesus wanted to reach out to people. He has suggested the following: Science is not out to destroy faith, for they can be compatible; the church will be left behind if it shuts its door to science; our research group has an open door to the scientific community; and don’t do pseudo-science.

Other brief examples based on many personal experiences:

1. Giving a Bible study on the “state of the dead” to a Baptist colleague while working for a Houston oil company.
2. Including acknowledgements in my PhD dissertation “to the Creator for making our natural world such a fascinating topic for study.”
3. Giving The Great Controversy to fellow physics graduate students, The Desire of Ages and an Adventist missionary book to my physics professors, and Russian Bibles to scientists while doing research there.

A variety of situations have provided opportunities for talking and friendships: While I was interviewing with an oil company, one geologist noticed religion classes on my transcript and expressed belief. A physicist in Moscow asked about the problem of evil, and we continued intermittent correspondence at Christmas for many years. An atheist and former Adventist sent a scathing e-mail, but with a “soft answer,” he became a regular correspondent whom I eventually visited in his home. Science colleagues have expressed an interest in the Adventist health lifestyle. Several geologists invited to a Peru field trip have been a part of our blessings before meals, worship each morning, and resting on Sabbath.

The ethos at Loma Linda University of benefitting the community has been especially meaningful to many geology colleagues. One from Colombia appreciated the Good Samaritan statue on campus. Another I roomed with in Russia wanted to benefit the community we were part of there and later invited me to visit with his students at an American university. An atheist with whom I struck up an unlikely friendship at a South Africa conference has ever since made a point of mentioning my being a Christian whenever we meet. When he asked what Adventists believe, he appreciated my response that we aim to make the world a better place.

Some friendships have resulted in closer Adventist association. One fellow physicist asked to attend church with us in Virginia. I helped arrange for a Russian physics student who translated for me there to study in Virginia, where he started attending the local Adventist church. A well-educated family with whom my wife worked were impressed by the physicians at Loma Linda, so became church members and later, next-door neighbors. As the result of a class I helped teach on campus, a student from a Communist country “decided to accept God as my only Creator and Savior.”

Adventists have something to offer, and Jesus’ methods work.

Ben Clausen (MS, Geology, Loma Linda University, California, U.S.A.; PhD, Nuclear Physics, University of Colorado, U.S.A.) is a senior research scientist at Geoscience Research Institute and Department of Earth and Biological Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, U.S.A. His email: [email protected].

Recommended Citation

Ben Clausen, "What Adventists have to share with the Scientific Community," Dialogue 30:3 (2018): 10-14

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 69‒81, especially 74.
2. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1898), 198.
3. ___________, Evangelism (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1946), 199‒202, 557, 574‒576; ___________, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1948), 6:120‒123; see also 1 Peter 3:15, NIV; White, The Desire of Ages, 260, 261.
4. Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature (New York: Random House, 1993), 258.
5. Mike McHargue, “How Not to Debate an Atheist: Five Arguments to Avoid When Discussing Religion With an Atheist,” Relevant (May 1, 2014): https://relevantmagazine.com/god/worldview/how-not- debate-atheist.
6. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, 264, 265.
7. Ibid., 414.
8. Ibid., 426.
9. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1907), 70, 71.
10. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), xiii‒xvi.
11. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, 150, 215‒219, 274‒276.
12. Madeleine L’Engle, Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art (Colorado Springs, Colo.: WaterBrook Press, 1980), 140, 141.
13. C. S. Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Walter Hooper, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970), 89‒103, especially 92, 93, and 103.
14. Lisa M. Beardsley, “Stealing Past Watchful Dragons: Communicating With the Postmodern Mind,” Dialogue 21:1 (2009):3, 4.
15. C. S. Lewis, “On Obstinacy in Belief,” in The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt: 1973), 13‒30, especially 26: https://archive.org/details/worldslastnighta012859mbp.
16. Søren Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1944), 15, 90‒96, 105, 306, 340, 343.
17. G. K. Chesterton, “The Maxims of Maxim,” Daily News (February 25, 1905). In Defense of Sanity: The Best Essays of G. K. Chesterton, Dale Ahlquist, Joseph Pearce, and Aidan Mackey, eds. (San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 2011), 90: https://books.google.com/ books?id=A9IwDwAAQBAJ).
18. Ellen G. White, Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1911), 244.
19. ___________, The Desire of Ages, 299.
20. Ibid.,141; see also page 340; ___________, Christ’s Object Lessons (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1900), 231.
21. ___________, The Desire of Ages, 808; see also page 350; , Christ’s Object Lessons, 57.
22. ___________, Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1917), 367‒368; see also Isaiah 19:24 and 25, RSV.
23. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978), 115, 116.
24. Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise, Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 331, 332, 535.
25. E.g., Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983).
26. E.g., William A. Dembski and Michael Behe, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
27. David Block, “For Heaven’s Sake: A Jewish Astronomer’s Odyssey,” Issues 7:8 (July 1, 1991); https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v07-n08/for-heaven-s-sake-a-jewish-astronomer-s- odyssey/.
28. See also White, The Desire of Ages, 330; Matthew 19:26; John 16:12; 1 Corinthians 1:25ff.
29. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1890), 113.
30. ___________, Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 1:22.
31. ___________, The Desire of Ages, 29.
32. ___________, Messages to Young People (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1930), 36.
33. J. B. Phillips, Your God Is Too Small (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 37‒40.
34. Carl Sagan, Contact (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985).
35. Lois Lowry, The Giver (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1993).
36. Ted Chiang, Stories of Your Life and Others (New York: Penguin Random House, 2002), 91‒145.
37. A. J. Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007).
38. Or beast of Revelation 14:9‒11.
39. White, The Desire of Ages, 27; Genesis 12:2, 3; see also Genesis 18:18 and 22:18.
40. ___________, The Ministry of Healing (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1905), 143.
41. See White, The Desire of Ages, 151; and also John 17:15.
42. Jon Paulien, Present Truth in the Real World: The Adventist Struggle to Keep and Share Faith in a Secular Society (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1993), 80‒82; see also Matthew 5:13 and 14.
43. Larry Alex Taunton, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson Books, 2016), xv.
44. See Randall W. Younker, “Integrating Faith, the Bible, and Archaeology: A Review of the ‘Andrews University Way’ of Doing Archaeology,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, James Karl Hoffmeier and Alan Ralph Millard, eds. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), pages 43 to 52, especially 52.
45. Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 202, 203; quotation from Augustine.
46. Philip E. Dow, Virtuous Minds: Intellectual Character Development (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2013); see also Frank M. Hasel, “Virtuous Thinking: Loving God With Heart and Mind,” Adventist Review 195:1 (January 5, 2018): 19‒23.
47. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 415; see also ___________, The Desire of Ages, page 347.
48. ___________, The Desire of Ages, 309; see also John 14:6.
49. Ibid.
50. Matthew 12:10‒13; Luke 4:31-‒39; 13:10‒13; 14:1-6; John 5:1‒16; 7:23; 9.