"Complementarity" defines the generally-accepted approach among evangelical Christian scientists for reconciling the findings of science with the teaching of the Bible.

In essence, "complementarity" insists that each perspective on a particular element of nature - that of science and that of religion - is true, but at a different level. Christopher M. Rios provides a history of the development of this idea in his article, "Claiming Complementarity: Twentieth-Century Evangelical Applications of an Idea" (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, June 2011).

It seems difficult to argue with the idea. Isn't it simply obvious? Not to everyone.

Consider the workings of a cell, for example. A secular, evolutionary scientist observes the same components, interactions, processes, and results as a Christian cytologist. Ask each what he sees. The secular scientist will describe the cell in terms of its being the primary engine of evolution. The Christian might wince a bit, but still acknowledge that he observes the same processes and components. Still, he might be expected to say a bit more. He might say, following Vern Poythress, for example (Redeeming Science), that the cell is a biological analog of the divine Trinity and provides an ongoing record of God's providence.

Those ideas do not sound "complementary" to me, especially as one begins extrapolating out from the cell to the larger structure of which it is a part and the place and purpose of that larger structure in the overall scheme of things.

I don't think evolutionary scientists would accept the idea of complementarity, because they would have to agree that the Christian perspective is as true as their own, if only at a different level. This, of course, flies in the face of the naturalistic assumptions of evolution. The late Stephen Jay Gould's attempt to "reconcile" science and religion with his notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" - disciplines that do not at all intersect but may be valid in their own right - has not been widely embraced by secularists working within the sciences.

The problem is not that "complentarity" is not true. The problem is that only Christians accept the truth of it; the substance of complementarity is easily observable and the conclusions obvious, but only within the context of a Christian worldview, and only after adjusting-out (depending on one's perspective within the Christian scientific community) certain evolutionary elements. The idea of "complementarity" does nothing to open a space for Christian input to the sciences, say, as these are being taught in the public schools, because the secular scientific community does not recognize its validity.

"Complementarity" merely states the obvious. It does nothing to ingratiate Christian thinking about science into the larger scientific arena. It seems useful primarily as a way of validating the work of Christians in the realm of science, but it is not likely to interrupt or alter the present course of secular and evolutionary thinking and working with respect to this critical area of society.

Christians will need to be considerably bolder and more radical - in digging up the presuppositional and religious roots of evolutionary thinking - if they hope to establish a vital Christian presence in the sciences.

Additional related texts: Romans 1.18-32; 2 Corinthians 10.3-5

A conversation starter: "Do you think the world of science - research, teaching, and so forth - should be a little more open to the idea of God and religion?"

T. M. Moore, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.