Various ancient cultures, such as China, were able to produce a high technology but only Christianized Europe generated true science based on the scientific method (experimental method). As many historians of science have acknowledged, scientific thinking and experimentation are encouraged by a variety of features inherent in the biblical worldview. In the discussion below, each facet of the scientific view of nature is shown to correspond to a revealed truth about God.
. . . there has never been room in the Hebrew or Christian tradition for the idea that the material world is something to be escaped from, and that work in it is degrading. Material things are to be used to the glory of God and for the good of men.
Mary Hesse, British philosopher of science (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 23)
I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.
Johannes Kepler, seventeenth century astronomer (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 23)
The monotheism of the Bible exorcised the gods of nature, freeing humanity to enjoy and investigate it without fear. When the world was no longer an object of worship, thenand only thencould it become an object of study. (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 24)
The veneration, wherewith men are imbued for what they call nature, has been a discouraging impediment to the empire of man over the inferior creatures of God: for many have not only looked upon it, as an impossible thing to compass, but as something impious to attempt, the removing of those boundaries which nature seems to have put and settled among her productions; and whilst they look upon her as such a venerable thing, some make a kind of scruple of conscience to endeavor so to emulate any of her works, as to excel them. [emphasis added]
Robert Boyle, seventeenth century chemist (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 251)
As I try to discern the origin of that conviction [that the universe is ordered], I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.
Melvin Calvin, Nobel prize-winning biochemist (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 25)
The phrase laws of nature is so familiar to the modern mind that we are generally unaware of its uniqueness. People in pagan cultures who see nature as alive and moved by mysterious forces are not likely to develop the conviction that all natural occurrences are lawful and intelligible. . . . As historian A. R. Hall points out, the concept of natural law was unknown to both the ancient Western world and the Asian world. When the concept finally arose in the Middle Ages, Hall says, it signified a notable departure from anything that had gone before. (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 26)
The Biblical God created the universe ex nihilo and hence has absolute control over it. Genesis paints a picture of a Workman completely in charge of His materials. . . . In all other religions, the creation of the world begins with some kind of pre-existing substance with its own inherent nature. As a result, the creator is not absolute and does not have the freedom to mold the world exactly as he wills. (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 27)
Matter in the Platonic sense, which must be prevailed upon by reason, will not obey mathematical laws exactly: matter which God has created from nothing may well strictly follow the rules which its Creator has laid down for it. In this sense I called modern science a legacy, I might even have said a child, of Christianity.
C. F. von Weizsacker, noted twentieth century physicist (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 28)
Belief in a rational order in nature would have no practical benefit for science were it not accompanied by the belief that humans can discover that order. . . . Joseph Needham, a student of Chinese culture, asks in his book The Grand Titration why the Chinese never developed modern science. The reason, he said, is that the Chinese had no belief either in an intelligible order in nature nor in the human ability to decode an order should it exist. (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 29)
As historian John Hedley Brooke puts it, If the workings of nature reflected the free agency of a divine will, then the only way to uncover them was by empirical investigation. No armchair science, premised on how God must have organized things, was permissible. Science must observe and experiment. (Pearcey and Thaxton, p. 33)
. . . as science historian P. M. Rattansi argues, it is now generally accepted that the Christian concept of moral obligation played an important role in attracting people to the study of nature. . . . In his words, Protestant principles encouraged a commitment to the study of Gods Book of Nature as complementing the study of the book of Gods word. They imposed a religious obligation to make such study serve the twin ends of glorifying God and benefiting fellow-men. (Pearcey and Thaxton, pp. 35-36)
Pearcey, Nancy R., and Charles B. Thaxton. 1994. The Soul of Science. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.