Science in Christian Perspective
Presidential Greetings
Temporal Consistency rather than Eternal
Accuracy
Charles Hatfield, President of the American Scientific Affiliation
From: JASA 21 (March 1969): 32
This past week an instructor in our English department asked whether he could subscribe to our journal. I assured
him that being
a nonscientist was no barrier. He had been attracted to the journal by recent
articles on speaking in tongues and was pleased to see a 20th century point of
view supported by farranging data, including those of the Bible. The incident
suggests, among other things, that there might be many non-scientists among our
colleagues that would find the journal a stimulating contribution to
the continuing
conversation between Science and Christianity.
Through the years the quality' of our Journal has steadily improved.
This is because
each Editor backed by his editorial team has been dedicated to the
task. I believe
that we are agreed that we strive for a more perfect understanding of the world
as seen both through science and the Bible.
History should at least temper our extreme judgments in each area. The best we can hope for, it
would seem, is temporal consistency rather than eternal accuracy in
this endeavor
to relate the two areas. We should remember that history, art, and literature
provide other ways of looking at some of the same data of the past.
We impoverish
our minds as scientists when we fail to expose ourselves to these
other disciplines
and the lessons they offer. Nevertheless, most of us
are caught up in the necessity of selection of a specialty in order to achieve
depth of penetration.
Recently I was out in the yard looking for certain birds with some
binoculars-the
individual focus type. It occurred to me that just as either or both
of the eyepieces
could be out of focus, so our study of the Bible and our scrutiny of the world
via science could involve imperfect focus. It suggests, too, that we
seldom have
perfect eyesight in both eyes. Hence a correction of one sort or the other is
often needed. The historian of science could probably provide various
illustrative
examples of such pathological situations. In any event, should we not remember
the analogy when we are tempted to enter into controversy involving these two
areas and at least hesitate long enough to examine both our own eyes
and our eyepieces
before we precipitate a judgment about another man's sight?
I look forward to serving the membership this year in whatever way I can. Your
suggestions are invited, whatever they are. I hope that the same frank exchange
of ideas that has characterized most of our past may continue throughout 1969.
I shall appreciate your letters presenting dissenting opinion or
congruent support,
but either is welcome. I hope to be able to reply, wherever
appropriate, through
the pages of the Newsletter.