No, I am not talking about the religion called “Christian Science”. That religion always reminds me of Grape Nuts (its neither grapes, nor nuts). I am talking about how a Christian does science, or understands science, or appreciates science.
This is not a question to be settled only by the people in the lab coats. All of us are affected by science, and oft those outside the trenches are best able to take in the meaning of the battle. I claim no expertise, then, but simply lay out my opinion for your comments and thoughts.
First, a Christian doing science will use the same methodology as anyone else doing science. He or she will use the scientific method appropriate to the field of study. Appeals to the bible or the viewpoints of the church (as if the church was univocal) will be totally out of place in deciding scientific questions. Nor will the Christian scientist be affected by the question of whether or not God exists. The reason is that if God does exist, he has presumably left the area of science under investigation subject to the natural laws of physics he established. Miracles are more the realm of the historian than of the scientist. This combination (of belief in God and metaphysical neutrality in methodology) actually gives the Christian an advantage: He or she is able to be content with saying of some things: “we don’t know”, rather than forcing facts into ill-fitting theories that try to explain everything from a naturalistic viewpoint.
Second, the Christian doing science or appreciating science is able to understand the picture, not just examine the brushstrokes. I take this metaphor from the times I have stood staring at a Van Gogh at a local museum. With my face a few inches from the glass I have wondered and been amazed at how the crazy brushstrokes conveyed the weary face of the farm worker, or the beautiful mess of the haystack. And the crucial work of those in the lab coats is to unveil or to shine light on, the various parts of the painting. A few, whom I will call meta-scientists, will step a few feet back and show how all the parts of the painting work together to create, not isolated images, but a blended panorama. A Christian (or, substitute most religious persons here) are not those who see different things in the painting, but are those who can consult, as it were, Van Gogh’s diary on why he painted what he did. They see not just the beauty of the painting, but the meaning of the painting. They praise not only the glory of the masterpiece, but the glory of the master.
Of course, others are free to view with skepticism whether the religious folk have the real diary, or even if the painting had a painter. But those are not scientific questions. And the religious folks, alleged diary in hand, are free to respond, “And what is your explanation, not for what the painting is, but what it means, and how do you justify that explanation? I’m all ears.”