There exists a common misperception, particularly outside the Church but occasionally even within, which supposes an apparent dichotomy, or conflict, between science on the one hand, and religion on the other. The battle historically has been waged by supporters of the prevailing view trying to adapt oppos­ing evidence to fit. Unbelieving scientists (and it should be noted that there are many believing scientists) explain away the miraculous as quickly as Jannes and Jambres (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7) while some in the Church have in the past refused to accept well-founded science. One of the most celebrated examples of this required a battlefield as large as the solar system.

Though it was not universally accepted at the time, Greek philosopher Aristotle popularized a view of the cosmos in which Earth formed the stable central pivot around which the rest of creation revolved. This view was ex­panded and written down some years later by the Greco-Roman mathematician Claudius Ptolemy, whose multivolume work on the subject, most commonly referred to as the Almagest, presented a mathematical foundation for what he said were his observations of the motions of the sun, moon, planets and stars. Although Ptolemy's Almagest required the reader to accept some rather convoluted explanations, it appeared to predict with fair accuracy the motion of the major heavenly bodies and was quickly accepted as definitive; in fact, it was said that for the fol­lowing 14 centuries nothing could be called "astronomy" which had not been set forth by Ptolemy. Over time it became apparent that some inconsistencies existed be­tween Ptolemaic geocentrism and reality, but Academia and the Roman Church, reluctant to abandon Ptolemy, dealt with the problem by introducing ever more com­plicated models of planetary motion, some almost laugh­ably complex.

It was into this world that English theologian and logi­cian William of Ockham was born. Educated at Oxford, William was trained as a Franciscan monk but found conflicts in various aspects of Church practice prevalent at the time. William argued against many of the accept­ed doctrines of the Roman Church, and was eventually excommunicated by the Pope, but his arguments and principles greatly influenced later theologians, notably Luther and Tyndale, as well as serious science. One of William's most valuable tools in dealing with inconsis­tency was a logical concept which, ironically, he cred­its to Aristotle, the same philosopher upon whose ideas Ptolemy built his cosmological house of cards. Aristotle's concept, "the more perfect a nature, the fewer means will it require" was widely known by William's time, but he made such regular, effective and understandable use of it that the concept eventually became known by his name, "Ockham's (Occam's) Razor." Simply put, Occam's Razor demands that unnecessary complexity be "shaved" from any hypothesis, theory or explanation, resulting in the simplest explanation which fits the facts. Theologians applied the principle to "let Scripture interpret Scripture. To astronomers dealing with the ever more Byzantine re­quirements of Ptolemaic cosmology, Occam's Razor cut through the fog and admitted a breath of fresh air.

Studying in Italy, a young Polish scholar named Miko­laj Kopernik began to openly question the mathematical model of Ptolemy's Almagest in light of observations he was able to make of events the current orthodoxy pro­fessed to describe. Over the next few years Kopernik, under his Latinized name, Copernicus, demonstrated that removal of unnecessary complexity refuted Ptolemy's model and in fact revealed a universe in which at least the planets and Earth revolved about the Sun. Soon other scientists, emboldened and now worthy of the name, began to identify additional "holes" in the long-accepted cosmology, which was eventually shown to have been founded upon fraudulent observations and fabricated specifically to support Ptolemy's preconcep­tions. Though taught for centuries as fact by those who should have known better, instead of rejecting Ptolemy's assertions they dealt with the increasing evidence against it by rejecting the evidence and ridiculing, intimidating and even attacking those who brought it.

The parallels to today's "current orthodoxy" of Darwini­anism are striking.

There is in fact no battle between science and religion when both are practiced as they should be. Science can examine only that which we call General Revelation, while religion has the additional (and, as we confess, clearer) perspective of Special Revelation, the Bible. But both ultimately seek one thing, the truth. Occam's Razor will never separate science from religion; rather, it must inevitably separate both from error.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.2 Timothy 2:15