In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages, which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

— St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 408, vol. 1, p. 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?

— St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 408, vol. 1, p. 42.

To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself unreliable in interpreting scientific data, which are subject to objective verification, how can it be trusted to handle biblical statements on spiritual matters that cannot be objectively verified? Demonstrably false science gives people reasons to reject the gospel—reasons to disbelieve rather than reasons to believe.

— Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, 2004, p. 173.

The silence of scripture is not evidence for us, or, as I sometimes like to put it: “When short of data literally for Heaven’s sake, keep mind open and mouth shut.” There are any number of speculative questions on which the scripture simply doesn’t say anything.... And we must get into our bones the idea that, where we’re dealing with God’s truth, it is not our business—even in the interests of piety and all kinds of apologetic or other advantages—for us to overplay God’s hand for Him, to pretend that we can deny certain things and say that they’re impossible on biblical grounds where the Bible has simply said nothing.

— Donald M. MacKay, “God’s View of Man,” 1986, 34:18.

Science has in many things taught the Church how to understand the Scriptures. The Bible was for ages understood and explained according to the Ptolemaic system of the universe; it is now explained without doing the least violence to its language, according to the Copernican system. Christians have commonly believed that the earth has existed only a few thousands of years. If geologists finally prove that it has existed for myriads of ages, it will be found that the first chapter of Genesis is in full accord with the facts, and that the last results of science are embodied on the first page of the Bible. It may cost the Church a severe struggle to give up one interpretation and adopt another, as it did in the seventeenth century, but no real evil need be apprehended. The Bible has stood, and still stands in the presence of the whole scientific world with its claims unshaken.

— Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1873, p. 171.

Of course, Christians will often disagree about the timing and substance of public critiques of the science of our day. This need not be a problem if we remain open to sharpening and being sharpened by our brothers and sisters all the while remembering that we are ultimately not to sit in judgment over the servants of another. In our disagreements with fellow believers we need to constantly remind ourselves that the most prominent apologetic for the faith given in Scripture is the way Christians show love to one another.

— Tim Morris and Don Petcher, Science & Grace, 2006, p. 306.

The first effect of the inner liberation brought about by the biblical message, however, should be that we fully recognize that good Christians may be bad scientists, poor exegetes and silly people.

— Reijer Hooykaas, Philosophia Libra, 1957, p. 9.

A scientist in God’s world, who knows and loves the Author of it, can rejoice equally in the growth of the explanatory structure of science, and in any surprises that may shake it. For both he returns thanks to the same Giver, recognizing his obligation to do justice both to the normal coherence of the flux of created events, and to its moment-by-moment contingency on the divine fiat. His mind will be open but critical, rational but not rationalistic, realizing that the God of truth is even more concerned than he is that he should not swallow falsehood—but also that he should not disbelieve what is true, however unexpected. He will be careful—especially in his public pronouncements—to distinguish as clearly as possible between data and theoretical extrapolations; chary of baseless speculation; and alert to illegitimate attempts to turn science into scientism. In all this—if he can only be true to it—he may find much of value for the defense of the biblical faith; but the Christian’s motive for it can never be one of apologetic expediency. His one desire must be to do the fullest justice to all the data given him by God, to whom he will be accountable for keeping the record straight.

— Donald M. MacKay, Science, Chance, and Providence, 1978, pp. 19-20.

But if once we recognize that at least most theological categories are not ‘in the same plane’ (in the same logical subspace) as most scientific categories, there is no longer any theological merit in hunting for gaps in the scientific pattern. Gaps there are in plenty. But...it would seem to be the Christian’s duty to allow—indeed to help—these gaps to fill or widen as they will, in humble and cheerful obedience to the truth as God reveals it through our scientific discipline, believing that to have theological stakes in scientific answers to scientific questions is to err in company with those unbelievers who do the like.

— Donald M. MacKay, “Divine Activity in Physical Events,” 1954, p. 189.

I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable. But I think that the results which each man arrives at in his attempts to harmonize his science with his Christianity ought not to be regarded as having any significance except to the man himself, and to him only for a time, and should not receive the stamp of a society.

— James Clerk Maxwell, Draft of a reply to an invitation to join the Victoria Institute, 1875.

If, however, we were to try to build a ‘Christian’ science, we should be acting like a man who hunts for his spectacles while they are on his nose. Modern science and technology to a great extent are fruits of Christianity.

— Reijer Hooykaas, The Christian Approach in Teaching Science, 1960, p. 12.