When Science Writers Write on Religion:
The Case of Isaac Asimov
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
(Investigator 185, 2019 March
The late Isaac
Asimov (1920-1992) is one of the best known contemporary science and
science fiction writers in the West. The Russian born Jewish American
has produced over four hundred fiction and non-fiction books on almost
every area of science and literature. His writing talents and subject
variety are legend, running the gamut from pornography (his Still More Lecherous Limericks is advertised for sale to adult over 21 only) to Biblical commentary (Guide to the Bible, 2 volumes).
His Education:
He completed his Master of Arts degree in chemistry in 1941 and a
Doctor of Philosophy in biochemistry in 1948, both from Columbia
University in New York. In 1984, the American Humanist Association
(AHA) named him The Humanist of the Year.
He was for his entire life an outspoken aggressive anti-Creationist and
a militant pro-evolutionist, a worldview that shows through in his
writing. Nonetheless, his many fans include many creationists who find
his science writing very enlightening in spite of his aggressive stand
against Christianity.
In the Beginning
One of his books, In the Beginning,
is a readable, flowing book written for high school or undergraduate
college level readers. In the Beginning is a verse by verse commentary
of Genesis and, although it contains much good information, it is
rather superficial, lacks references or a bibliography, and is at times
condescending of religious persons and beliefs.
Asimov
uncritically accepts all of the assumptions and conclusions of liberal
scholars. An example is the idea that Genesis is a “scissors and
paste job” of materials from four separate sources. The “JEPD theory”
is presented without ever acknowledging the many criticisms against it
(one of many was reviewed in Time,
By one Hand? December 7, 1981). Time Magazine reported on a five year
computer study that found Genesis is more likely the work of a single
writer and the JEPD theory, which has hardened into liberal orthodoxy,
must be rejected or, at best, be thoroughly revised. This conclusion
came from the research of Dr. Israel Radday and his colleagues, a
respected scholar whom Time claimed earned wide acclaim for his
computer analysis of other books of the Bible. Asimov should have
acknowledged this important contemporary reference which demolished his
JEPD theory.
The tone of
Asimov’s book is set on the first page with such statements as “Against
these strong, unwavering and undeviating beliefs [referring to people
who believe that the Bible is God’s Word] the slowly developing views
of scientists have always had to fight.” This superficial
oversimplification evidences little knowledge of the history of science
and religion. Sometimes Asimov is misleading, as when early in the book
he states:
What
does the Bible say, and what does science say?...[this book] does not
argue one way or the other. It offers no polemics. It merely considers
the verses of the Bible, line by line, and indeed word by word,
discusses the content and meaning, and compares them with the
scientific views that pertain to the passage (pp. 1-2).
As Asimov later
admits, however, his book does no such thing. Rather than being
objective and unbiased, as the above quote promises, his purpose is
clearly to persuade his readers that, although having some “historical
value,” the Bible is not God’s word and merely reflects the
“unscientific beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.” Yet, Asimov has many
good things to say about the Genesis account. He admits that the
Bible writers
labored
to produce something that was as reasonable and as useful as possible.
In doing so, they succeeded wonderfully. There is no version of
primeval history, preceding the discovering of modern science, that is
as rational and as inspiring as that of the first eleven chapters of
the book of Genesis (p. 3).
One interesting
comparison Asimov makes is that the Scriptures teach Earth was at one
time “without form and void,” or disordered which corresponds with the
modern evolutionary theory that teaches the solar system was formed
from a vast cloud of dust and gas. Whereas most scientists formerly
believed that the universe has always existed, Asimov points out that
most scientists now believe that the universe had a definite beginning
as the Scriptures state.
He acknowledges
that, while religionists have had their squabbles over Bible
interpretations and religious issues, science has likewise seen its
share of arguments, disputes and endless polemics (p. 8). A difference,
Asimov claims, is that scientific opinion eventually swings one way or
the other according to the facts, but religious opinion does not. This
common claim is, of course, simply false. The fact is, some religious
denominations have moved radically away from their original teachings.
Many scientists also differ with his differentiation. We are still
arguing some very old “scientific” controversies such as Darwinism, as
anyone who has spent much time in science is well aware. One scientist
wrote almost 20 years after Asimov died that:
Although Charles Darwin titled his book On the Origin of Species,
speciation was one thing he could not explain. He called it the
“mysteries of mysteries,” and even a century-and-a-half later the
mechanism by which two groups of animals become genetically
incompatible remains one of the greatest puzzles in biology (Bob
Holmes, 2011. Evolution’s X Factor. New Scientist p. 33).
Conversely, many
religious controversies have been settled long ago. Many were settled
by Paul, Peter, and the Apostles centuries ago— how many Christians
today argue whether Christians must be circumcised as a condition of
salvation? Asimov’s statements may be more true in physics and
chemistry than biology. According to Kline (1981), there are more
debates in science today than ever before.
Other reviewers have also noted Asimov’s evident lack of Biblical knowledge. Gordon Stein, writing in The American Rationalist states,:
Asimov
brings a broad breadth of scientific knowledge to his examination of
Genesis. How great his Biblical knowledge is, one never can quite
be sure. He does seem quite positive about many of his interpretations
of the Biblical text, even when theologians have been arguing among
themselves over the meaning [of them] for years (p. 47).
Asimov recounts
the story of how the view that outside intervention was needed to
account for the universe has been slowly discarded in Science.
Scientists, he writes
grew
increasingly reluctant to suppose that the workings of the laws of
nature were interfered with...in short, the scientific view sees the
universe as following its own rules blindly, without either
interference or direction. (p. 11)
He adds the
rather seeping and highly debatable conclusion that “So far, scientists
have not uncovered any evidence that would hint that the workings of
the universe require the action of a divine being.”(pp. 11-12) He
admits, though, that “On the other hand, scientists have uncovered no
evidence that indicates that a divine being does not exist.” (p. 12)
Asimov also
rehashes some of the old debates, i.e. God as the answer to where the
universe came from raises the question “who made God?” Jews and
Christians have answered God always existed, and is the uncaused first
cause. The scientists answer is “The Big Bang is ultimately
the creation of everything from nothing, then something appeared from
nothing “perhaps smaller than a proton” (Hawking, 2018, p. 34). Then
the expansion of the universe occurred and the stars and planets soon
followed. Thus, the Big Bang explains the origin of space, matter,
energy, and time from nothing (Hawking, 2018, pp. 29-31). In other
words, thanks to the Big Bang “you can get a whole universe for free”
because “the fantastically enormous universe of space and energy can
materialize out of nothing” from the Big Bang (Hawking, 2018, pp.
31-32).
Conversely,
Asimov does accurately describe the chief conflict between creationists
and evolutionists, namely, “The Bible describes the universe created by
God, maintained by him, while scientists describe a universe in which
it is not necessary to postulate the existence of God at all” because
it can somehow create itself (p. 13).
Asimov is rather dogmatic in many of his interpretations of both
Scripture and science. For example, Asimov is certain “The heavens,” in
Genesis 1:11 refers to a vault in the sky made out of a solid steel
semi-circular dome covering the earth and the permanent objects
connected to it (p. 14). One might wonder how he could be so sure about
this interpretation, especially in view of the fact that many Biblical
scholars have come to other, very different, conclusions.
Asimov also
indulges in much fanciful speculation. He claims that the cosmic egg
(the single body of matter, often described as about the size of a pin
head or smaller, that existed in the “beginning” and from which all
that exists came from, exploded in the largest conceivable explosion,
called the Big Bang noted above, which was so enormous that its
fragments were
at
first entirely too hot for matter, as we know it to exist. Initially,
the products formed in the explosion are energy. In tiny fractions of a
second, the temperature dropped precipitously, and the Universe became
cool enough to form certain fundamental particles of matter. Today,
however, the Universe is too cool to allow these particles to exist. A
full second after the big bang, the temperature of the Universe had
dropped ten billion degrees, about what it is at the center of the
largest stars, and the ordinary sub-atomic particles we know today came
into existence. Later ordinary atoms were formed (p. 23).
This
information, although presented as factual science, is based on current
limited knowledge and enormous guesswork and assumption. Speculation
serves a very important role in science, but should be labeled as such,
which Asimov does not do. He is also evidently unaware of the
difficulties of arriving at “truth” from the scientific method
(Robbins, 1978; Bergman 1983). In short, Asimov’s ideas reflect his
worldview and his evolution glasses successfully block out that which
does not fit his worldview. This is now easier to see after almost 40
years after he wrote his book on Genesis.
References
Asimov, Isaac.1981. In the Beginning: Science Faces God in the Book of Genesis. New York: Crown.
Bergman, Jerry. 1983. “What is Science?” The Creation Research Society Quarterly 20(1):39-42, June.
Hawking, Stephen. 2018. Brief Answers to the Big Questions. New York: Bantam Books
Kline, Morris. 1980. Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robbins, John W. 1978. Book review of Criticism and The Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly, 1(2):13-17. Winter.
Stein, Gordon. 1981. Review of In the Beginning. American Rationalist. 26(3):47. September-October.