A demand for proof of a faith often seems self-righteous. Who says, then, that faith must be proven, or that science and faith are comparable? Or, to use the image, is one comparing apples to oranges? This is an important question because it indirectly answers one’s own basic assumptions—what one lives by and what shapes one’s own convictions of faith.

The confusion is understandable, though. Think of a topic like “creation” or “evolution” and you see it immediately. Quite a few people man the barricades because they understand either one or the other as “true.” Perhaps this juxtaposition is really about an understanding of truth. Behind it stands the expectation or assumption that something is “absolutely true.” There is a claim to absoluteness.

Those well-versed in the Bible then perhaps think of the creation mentioned there. They weren’t there, of course, but the Bible describes it that way. Then the Bible is also “God’s Word,” and, in the sense of the seventeenth-century doctrine of inspiration, as certain as God himself. The Bible is said to be the “infallible Word of God,” thereby acquiring qualities of God himself. This sometimes goes so far that one “believes in the Bible” the way one “believes in God.” It is the claim to an absolute authority in all matters, here guaranteed by God himself. Because of these inferences (!), one comes to regard a creation account as absolute truth and classify everything else as “false.”

When it comes to the Bible speaking about the origin of the world, two things are usually meant:

1. The first chapter of the Bible describes how the world physically came into being (this is the topic one defines as the starting point!). This is absolute truth.
2. This view contradicts the idea of evolution, so evolution is false/satanic/unbiblical.

People from the scientific camp proceed differently. They work with hypotheses—that is, probabilities based on research to date. Here too, no one was present at the origin of the world, but one can examine whether traces of that origin can be found. One can also develop ideas about how the traces fit together into an understanding.

Perhaps the best way to view this understanding is as a “working hypothesis.” One acts as if it were true until proven otherwise. The goal is to deepen understanding. Of course, here too a hypothesis can be held as absolute truth and defended with religious zeal, but that is not part of the nature of science.

One should not make the mistake here of thinking that science is therefore “uncertain.” That reduces science to nothing but one’s own insecurity. In reality, a working hypothesis is the best thing found so far. There is no claim to absolute truth, because that is never given based on the evidence. There are, however, probabilities, which one works with (provisionally).

Creation and evolution are indeed two different concepts—but do they actually stand opposed to one another? Questioning this might reveal something new. Perhaps two different stories are being told, with different concerns. If that is the case, there is no misleading opposition, but rather something new: the recognition of two different things.

If the topic of the Bible’s first chapter is not creation, why then is this story told? Whoever asks this sets out toward a new horizon. Because this story certainly has something true to tell. What should one imagine here? What is the topic? If I define the topic as speaking of the physical origin of this world, is that my focus or the focus of the text?

The greatest challenge between faith and science lies not in their respective statements but in their expectations and concerns. If it turns out that both have different concerns, then perhaps there’s no need to man the barricades. One stops comparing apples to oranges and instead sees them as distinct fruits of different trees.

Some will immediately object here, as though I were “relativizing” truth. But that is not the case. I want to understand what the concern of the Bible is and what the concern of science is, and I see that these concerns may have been wrongly assessed. It is the human interpretation and classification that I am questioning.

Is the topic of both the origin of the world? This question demands the ability to think abstractly. If you find yourself in a trench war between viewpoints, you can learn to view the situation with some distance. Both concepts advance a claim to truth. Bear in mind that every claim to truth serves one’s own concern. Can one distinguish one’s own concerns from those of the other side?

If this distinction of concerns fails, one may think everyone is talking about the same thing. Both expect to give the absolutely correct answer to how this world physically came into being. Yet they stand in different places because there are different concerns. This leads to strange assumptions. Some Bible scholars may think themselves divinely authorized to teach the true science, and some scientists think they can prove the Bible untenable. Yet their concerns are fundamentally different and serve different purposes.

Moreover, there are many believing scientists. They manage to reconcile science and faith. This does not happen by becoming “unbelieving” or “unscientific,” but by soberly recognizing the different concerns and tasks in life. One need not pit faith and science against each other to appreciate their respective values.

Het echte probleem bij dit controversiële thema ‘schepping of evolutie’ is dat niemand erbij was toen de wereld ontstond (Job 38:4). Niemand kan er als ooggetuige verslag van doen. En voor zover we deze zaken in de Bijbel in de vijf boeken van Mozes aantreffen, is één ding zeker: Mozes was er ook niet bij. Kortom: het begin van deze wereld is op een bepaald moment beschreven door mensen die er niet bij waren. Niets meer, maar ook niets minder. Er zijn geen ooggetuigenverslagen. Het heeft geen zin om dan vroom te verwijzen naar een brief van Petrus, waarin staat: „Want de profetie is nooit voortgekomen uit de wil van een mens, maar heilige mannen van God hebben gesproken, gedreven door de Heilige Geest“ (2 Petr. 1:21). Dat bewijst noch de schepping, noch een dictaat van God over fysische processen bij het ontstaan van deze wereld.

The core of a debate that matters to many Christians lies in understanding the respective viewpoints. What, for instance, is the Bible’s intent? What was it written for? Is the Bible designed as a scientific handbook, or does it tell of something else? That everything in the first book of the Bible should revolve around the physical origin of the world is an interpretation. Disputes arise from this. They seem rather pointless if the concern of the book of Genesis is a different one.

How could one imagine this differently? This is a significant question because there was no science yet when the Bible was written. So it was not written as a counter-proposal to a science that did not yet exist. The Bible had its own reason for being written, long before there was any science. What is that reason?

The Bible’s narrative can also carry an understanding of God into a world that knew nothing of it. One doesn’t start from God, but from the known world, and then introduces this God into the world. I think this can be well anchored exegetically. This shifts the core theme from creation to the Creator and from the physical world to the invisible God who created heaven and earth. Heaven and earth were known—but God? The biblical stories introduced God into people’s world of experience.

If this is the intent behind the first chapter of the Bible, then it is a different intent from that of modern science. Then the message is not the physical creation, but the whole chapters are the way the biblical concern is told. The Bible speaks of creation not for the sake of creation but because it perfectly explains how God relates to this world. This does not deny creation but sees it as a subordinate account, one that only needs to serve the main concern and nothing else.

The point is this: whoever thinks only in categories of “absolutely right” or “absolutely wrong,” and thinks from today’s perspective will see contradictions here. But I don’t think it has to be that way at all. The Bible and science represent different concerns. Both sketch something from a different perspective.

Things get truly veiled in self-righteousness when a group tries to force an authority of interpretation over all perspectives. The claim to truth is meant to apply to everyone. When this is done with the Bible in hand, one can locate there the infamous notion of “preaching down,” where something is devalued from the pulpit. There, the Bible becomes a political weapon and an ideological tool for the self-righteous.

The terms “fundamentalism” and “biblicism” are described and perceived in this way. It is the attempt to gain an authority of interpretation, which—logically enough—offends many sincere people. This is not a value judgment, but rather, to use a vivid comparison, “If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck” (the duck test).

True or not true? Radical, ideologically shaped views thrive in this field of tension. A more differentiated view needs room for thought. Let’s first clear up a few possible misunderstandings.

Do I believe? Yes. Can I prove my faith? No, I can’t. Am I unscientific because of that? Of course not. I would only be that if I thought that faith and science speak about the same things and that one must be judged as “right” and the other as “wrong.” Whoever gets entangled in trench warfare between faith and science does neither faith nor science any favor. In my view, people wage trench warfare only because of their own insecurity.

Another problematic assessment is this: faith and science must be judged by the same criteria. As a basic assumption, this shapes the whole debate. This is understandable if one assumes they are comparable things and that only one of the two represents “the truth.” That, too, is recognizable. But here one can already ask critically: where does the claim to truth come from?

Now, many evangelicals are known as “anti-science,” for instance, through their emphasis on creation over evolution. It’s an ideological stance. Trench warfare then arises through human inferences. The Bible speaks of creation; therefore (a human inference!), science is wrong. Or: everything in the scientific consensus interprets the origin of this world as evolution; therefore (a human inference!), the Bible is wrong.

This kind of opposition requires an understanding of truth that is at war with every other interpretation. This becomes ideologically entrenched by making clear that one has cornered the market on truth oneself. Such a view, however, has nothing to do with either the Bible or science.

Misunderstandings can be clarified. It helps to understand the concerns of different viewpoints. It also takes courage to let go of ideological views in favor of better ones. One learns to see faith in a more differentiated way. Development and growth begin here.

Once misunderstandings have been cleared up, one can try to foster mutual understanding. This can happen, for instance, by asking about the other side’s concerns. What is the concern of science, and what is the concern of the Bible? In my view, the difference between the answers is the end of every trench war.

One receives two different answers, which no longer need to be forced into harmony come what may. One can begin to discover each other’s respective strengths. It’s worth bearing in mind that science’s strength is not the biblical narrative, nor does the understanding of the Bible need to match the concern of science.

Here one can recognize differences:

1. Science examines the origin of the world, proceeding from the world.
2. Faith examines the significance of God in this world, proceeding from the Bible and/or tradition.

Being able to bear these differences without manning the barricades—perhaps even seeing them as a broadening of horizons—is the precondition for a genuine conversation.