Science in Christian Perspective
Gems of Wisdom and Wrong Conclusions
Vernon I. Ehlers
Professor of Physics,
Calvin College. Grand Rapids, MI
From: JASA 32
(June1980): 78-79.
It was with genuine anticipation that I sat down to read Pollard's
article, "A
Theological View of Nuclear Energy." We Christians are often remiss by not
applying our faith to contemporary problems, and based on Dr. Pollard's earlier
work I assumed he would have a genuine contribution to make to this particular
topic. After reading the article, I have mixed feelings. There are gems of wisdom
in the article, but unfortunately they are accompanied by a number of wrong
conclusions.
Let us begin by pointing out what is good: Pollard has an excellent
understanding
of stewardship and dominion, as exemplified by his statement that
"the biblical
understanding of man's dominion over the earth is one
of stewardship rather than domination I am mildly
surprised that he does not include a reference to Genesis 2:15: "The Lord
God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and
keep it."
Theologian friends inform me that a better translation is that man is
to "serve"
the land. Thus the dominion discussed in Genesis I is modified by the concept
of stewardship and service presented to us in Genesis 2. Our task as Christians
then is to serve the land, just as the land "serves" us in enabling
us to meet our needs.
In spite of Pollard's excellent understanding of dominion as service
and stewardship,
he goes astray by introducing extraneous concepts; extraneous in the
sense that,
although related to Biblical events, they are not an integral part of
the Christian
framework derived from Scripture. As an example, his discussion of
fear (although
interesting) is a general discussion with a few examples drawn from
the Bible,
hot it does not use any particular theological framework as a basis
for the discussion.
It is certainly true that humankind has been fearful of each new technological
development, and has been hesitant to use even the most beneficial.
However, that
does not mean that every new development should immediately be
embraced, without
fear, and used to its fullest. I believe the sense of fear with which
we are endowed
is very useful. It is primarily a fear of the unknown, and reflects a healthy
respect for that which we do not vet folly understand. The biggest difference
between our present fear of nuclear energy and previous fears of
fire, electricity,
and the locomotive arises from the scale of the danger, both in space and time.
Although it is true many persons died as a result of electrocution,
very few persons
were affected outside of those actually working with electricity; the damage was
confined to the death
or injury of those participants. The situation with nuclear energy
(and many other
modern developments) is that the dangers extend far beyond the user,
both in space
and time. A release of radioactivity from a nuclear plant affects
many "innocent"
persons. Furthermore, because the long-term genetic effects of
radiation are poorly
understood, we may possibly be affecting future generations by adding
to the ambient
radioactivity levels surrounding us. In view of this, I believe our
fear of nuclear
energy is well-founded, and we should be doubly cautions in
developing this energy
source.
This is not to say that we most abandon nuclear energy. As Pollard
correctly points
out, all of creation, including unclear energy and its associated potential for
production of useful power, is a gift from God and as such is "good."
I lowever, the evil, as Pollard again correctly points out in another context,
arises from the use roan makes of these gifts from God. In his mind,
nuclear weapons
are evil; nuclear power is good. I do not believe the division is
that simple.
One might even be able to argue (although I certainly would riot) that nuclear
weapons in a certain context might be good. I believe one can certainly argue
(and I am willing to do so) that nuclear power plants may be either good or
evil, depending on their design and construction, their mode of operation, the
validity of the need they satisfy, etc. Clearly, rushing an inadequately tested
plant into operation, as was done at Three Mile island, is not good.
Nevertheless,
there are many situations in which nuclear power can he used productively and
safely.
1 have particular problems with Pollard's discussion of nuclear
energy and creation.
As I understand his argument, he states that because God created the universe
so that its essential power source is nuclear, and because most of the Matter
of the universe is encompassed in stars (which are in fact nuclear reactors),
therefore it is obvious that God intended to have its use nuclear power. I find
this argument both misleading and fallacious. If one follows that
line of reasoning
logically, I believe one can construct a much stronger ease for solar energy.
The nuclear reactors that God has created are placed far from us in spare, and only one of them is of
use to us as an energy source.
Furthermore, throughout the many years from creation until now the Earth has depended primarily on that one nuclear reactor (the Sun) for energy, and
that energy has always been delivered to its in a benign fashion
through electromagnetic
(themal and light) radiation. Thus it appears to me that the logic
of Pollard's
argument demands that we rely exclusively
on solar energy, which is the energy source all other organism on earth
rely upon for existence. In other words
I conclude that we should use nuclear energy, but that the reactor should he kept 93,000,000
miles away'.
Pollard s last argument , that the appearance of nuclear energy
upon the stem'
just as we are depleting our petroleum and natural gas resources
reveals a providential role or nuclear energy, although intriguing, once again is
misleading. Obviously, God's providence manifests itself' in many ways, but to
equate providence
with the coincidental development of a particular energy source as
another nears depletion is to to equate our self-centered choices with God's
plan. We should recall that the development of nuclear
energy resulted from development of the most destructive weapons the world has
ever known. Can we truly call this providential?
One final comment: to my mind the article does not represent
''a theological
view of nuclear energy,'' but rather "a Christian's perspective on nuclear
energy." Perhaps my understanding of the discipline of theology
is different
from Dr. Pollard's. but it appears to me, that we have in this
article not
theology lint rather an attempt, by a Christian, to provide it biblically related
justification of his previously adopted view point on nuclear energy. Only Pollard's discussion of
dominion and stewardship reflects good theology. I only wish that he had used this as a
framework to discuss our stewardly responsibilities as crew members of Spaceship Earth, as
we seek to develop new energy sources.
I fear that these comments are more negative than positive. Such is
not my overall intent. Pollad has muchgood to say, arid I applaud him for his
willingness to display his Christain perspective on this contemporary issue. I
am delighted
to see an article of this nature appear in a journal such as Nuclear News,
arid Dr. Pollard is to be commended for his work not only in
this article
but in other hooks and articles he has written. However, I do not regard
this article as a definitive discussion of the topic', but rather as a stimulus to further study and thought. The context in
which this article arid
its responses are
appearing in the JASA indicates
that Dr. Pollard is admirably fulfilling that purpose. I hope that he may
continue to do so, and that others may join him in this effort.