Is Science Revelation?
Our Belgic Confession speaks of two ways God reveals himself. In article 2, we confess that God first reveals himself “by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe.” But then he also “makes himself more clearly and fully known to us by his holy and divine Word.” Oftentimes these two ways of revelation are designated general and special revelation.
A question that has sometimes been raised is whether we can regard the results of science as part of the first way of revelation. An affirmative answer has been argued by some in the past. In the early 1990s, the Christian Reformed Church was contemplating the question of theistic evolution and whether it could be tolerated. Some argued that the Belgic Confession in article 2 tells us that science is also part of God’s revelation. For example, Robert Vandervennen wrote an article entitled, “Not the Bible Alone” in which he argued that “things we experience, the outcome of history, and the results of science are revelations.”[1] Of course, the next step was to argue that general revelation has been ignored by many more conservative minded folks in the CRC and that consequently Scripture was also being misinterpreted. It is the job of scientists to draw attention to what is often called general revelation and then to interpret it for the rest of us. In all of this, appeal was made to article 2. In more recent times a textbook produced by Wheaton College faculty explicitly contends that “scientific inquiry is a form of revelation.”[2]
Dr. N.H. Gootjes (late professor of dogmatics at CRTS) dealt with this issue in the first chapter of his 2010 book Teaching and Preaching the Word. He concluded that this view is not in harmony with article 2 of the Belgic Confession, nor with Scripture. With regard to the Confession, it does not say that general revelation provides additional data to the special revelation found in God’s Word. Moreover, the general revelation spoken of there reveals something about God, not about the world as such. It is a revelation of God, specifically of his power and glory. Finally, our Confession mentions no need for an interpreter of general revelation. It says, “we know him by two means…” There is no special office for the scientist envisioned here.[3]
I am generally in agreement with Dr. Gootjes. However, I would like to build on what he wrote and sharpen it. What his discussion omitted was the definition of science, as well as definitions of related terms such as scientific results and scientific discoveries. We might also ask: when is a scientist doing science? Or: when is a scientist producing scientific results? Imagine the following scenario: a geologist who happens to be a Christian is driving down a highway. Let’s say he’s approaching Jasper National Park in Alberta, driving in along Highway 16 from the east. As he nears the entrance to the park, it’s a magnificent sunny day without a cloud in the sky. The mountains are visible in all their grandeur. He looks to the left and sees Roche à Perdrix. This enormous mountain on the edge of the Fiddle Range has visible layers of rock folded one on top of the other. The geologist observes this and his mind begins to stir. He thinks of the processes which may have created this remarkable mountain. As the mountain ends up in his rear view mirror, his thoughts end with God and his power and majesty. Did the geologist do science on his way to being impressed with God? Was there any connection between what happened in the car and what we confess in article 2? Would we say something different if the person driving the car had been a theologian, a musician, or a construction worker? You see, the question is: where do we draw the line between just observing and thinking and scientific observation and reflection?
These are difficult questions to answer. Let me make an effort. In general, science is what people do as they observe, analyze, systematize, and theorize about various phenomena. In the context of our present discussion, we’re especially interested in natural science – which means that the phenomena under consideration occur in nature, in the natural world. The observation, analysis, systematizing, and theorizing take place through the use of a scientific method. In other words, this is carefully thought out. However, one should never regard the scientific endeavour as neutral. There are always presuppositions in play – one’s most fundamental, non-negotiable beliefs. These are the grid through which everything is filtered and by which one’s conclusions are inevitably coloured. By this description of science, the geologist coming into the mountains was not formally doing science (though there may have been elements of it in his thinking). He just happened to be a geologist driving through the mountains and thinking about them. Those thoughts led to a consideration of God’s power and majesty – as the created world is intended to.
But now let’s say he had parked his car and spent a month at Roche à Perdrix observing, analyzing and so forth. Then we could say he was engaged in science. Yet, at the end of it, he could still have come away being impressed with God’s power and majesty. No, the results of his study with regard to the world cannot be considered a form of revelation – because he is human, both a sinner and a finite creature, he may have made mistakes in his science. He may have had some wrong presuppositions. But yet he received the revelation about God these mountains were designed to convey.
That revelation about God – his eternal power and divine nature – is always there and always speaking. When scientists are doing science or when they’re just passing through Jasper National Park or wherever else, that revelation is present. In fact, that revelation is present for everyone, scientist or not. According to Romans 1, God makes these things plain and they are clearly seen. The problem is that there are those “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18).
Therefore Dr. Gootjes was correct to conclude that science and scientific results cannot be equated with general revelation. They certainly cannot be used as a grid through which to interpret special revelation. Yet there is still an important connection between science and article 2. At the last judgment, no scientist will ever be able to claim he had no clue regarding God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. It was made plain. It was clearly seen. This is true with regard to all scientific work. As Francis Schaeffer famously put it in the title of one of his books, “He is there and he is not silent.” Ever.
[1] See Teaching and Preaching the Word: Studies in Dogmatics and Homiletics, N.H. Gootjes (Winnipeg: Premier Publishing, 2010), 4.
[2] Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective, Robert C. Bishop, Larry L. Funck, Raymond J. Lewis, Stephen O. Mosher, John H. Walton (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2018), 63.
[3] Gootjes, 6-7.
Originally published in Clarion 74.07 (May 23, 2025)
