Over the last year or so I've written a number of posts that have reflected on various aspects of the intersection of science and faith. These are issues and questions that I've thought about and wrestled with most of my adult life. How should we interpret Genesis or Romans? What does it mean to claim that scripture is inspired? How much of Genesis is historical? Does it matter that Paul thought that Adam and Eve were unique individuals, if he did? How can we reconcile evolution with creation by God? Should we try? Is there room for chance in the universe? How can we reconcile the evidence for common descent with Adam and Eve and Original Sin? I could go on - but you get the idea.
These kinds of questions have been faced by many Christians over the last hundred years or so - often times contributing to a loss of faith, other times to a withdrawal, or to the development of an ironic faith. See Scot's book Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy or his CT article on ironic faith for more on these paths. These are deep questions, how we deal with them has serious ramifications - and the questions are not going to go away.
or his CT article on I have a simple question I would like to pose today:
What is the correct pastoral approach to the issues that arise at the intersection of science and faith?
As we've been thinking through these ideas at the intersection of science and faith I have been persistent that the evidence for an old earth and an older universe is overwhelming - there is no room for doubt here. More significantly I have tried to explain why I find the evidence for evolution and common descent persuasive, and why the idea of a literal Adam and Eve seems difficult to reconcile with the data.
In putting forth my ideas and thoughts I have been more blunt and more honest than is my usual habit. I have found it useful, as I have learned quite a bit through writing these posts and through the conversation that results. Some of the posts and comments reflect "thinking in public" more than firm preconviction.
But this blog is a public forum. Anyone can read and anyone can contribute to the conversation (well - as long as they remain civil and on topic). This conversation can help those who have questions and doubts, especially those who cannot find a space for safe conversation off-line. On the other hand it can challenge the faith of some who might never have needed to confront these issues and question. There is potential for doing good - and there is potential for doing harm.
I am interested in what you think - especially those who are pastors, youth workers, involved in University ministries and such.
What is the best pastoral approach to these questions? Should we be more concerned with potential harm or potential good?
If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
While any particular beliefs concerning creation issues should not be included in the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, these issues are very important for the purpose of not driving seekers away from the Church. Many churches continue to propagate the teachings of the young Earth creationists, either out of ignorance or because they think that to do otherwise would be somehow un-Christian. This sets up a huge conflict of thinking for many people, especially scientists, intellectuals, and young people. They reason that since their church teaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, for example, that the Church as a whole must be woefully off-track in all its teachings. So why have anything to do with such a bunch of nuts?
I myself used to suffer from the same conflict in thinking, but after reading some of Hugh Ross' books (http://www.reasons.org), I came to see that science's teachings and the Bible are not in conflict. How could they be, in fact, since the Bible is the Word of God and nature, which God created, also teaches us of him? What a freeing, joyous thing it was to finally understand.
Concerning my own beliefs, I do not believe in the evolution of species. I have yet to encounter even one piece of legitimate, convincing evidence for that teaching. In fact, even were I not a Christian, the notion that all the beauty and order of life in the universe just happened at random is complete nonsense. The YEC folks get hung up at the point where the Old Universe/Earth folks say that the universe is billions of years old, because the YEC folks think that opens the door to evolution, which is not at all the case.
I believe that the Genesis creation account can and should be interpreted literally. I also believe that that interpretation, done properly, is in agreement with the scientific facts of the Big Bang and a billions-of-years-old universe and Earth. God introduced the various forms of life at various points over a very long time (six long creation days).
Oh, if only people like Ken Ham and others like him would wake up! The YEC camp is doing irreparable harm to the cause of Christ.
RJS said: "No one - except those who do so on theological grounds - looks at the evidence and doubts the basic facts of old earth and progressive development."
Unapologetic_Catholic said: "Yes. Ignorance."
These are the sorts of responses that I see clearly at odds with the care of a persons soul and discipling them to know and follow after Jesus Christ.
There are a lot of people who doubt the conlusions you reached based on the same evidence, who have the appropriate credentials so as to not be waved away as so much ignorant masses. Are you unaware of these people, or do you suggest that they are presenting non-theological evidence to disagree with your position disengenuously, and they're *really* trying to sneak in theological stuff? This is unfairly dismissive. I would expect you to disagree with them, but to say that they don't exist...?
If you really mean what you say, that you don't know any intelligent, well meaning, humble, patient, and observant individuals (and I will now add non-conflicted/dual life) who disagree with you on non-theological grounds, then I suggest you would benefit from reaching out to some brothers in Christ in faith and grace who fit the bill.
If you don't mean that, and have overstated things to take a strong position, then I suggest you don't. :) Doing so can turn people off to Christ over a subject matter that is clearly of much much much less value than He is.
Thanks for your work on Biologos. It's a top notch site and one I easily recommend for those who want to know more about an honest presentation of Christian theistic evolution.
James,
I think that Unapologetic Catholic's answer was overly abrupt - although the explanation did soften it a bit.
On the issue of an old earth, the existence of and death of animals and other living creatures before the fall - there is no doubt whatsoever of an legitimate difference of opinion. There are people with the "appropriate credentials" who disagree with me, but the vast majority do it from a conviction that belief in the inspiration of scripture and/or from a belief that scripture requires the absence of death of of all sorts before the fall. There is no way to soften that statement. Many of them hold to a mature creation position - that the earth was created to look old - this position doesn't deny the science.
On all of the other issues - including the possibility of "progressive creation" with microevolution and intelligent design the situation is more complex.
James,
Let me phrase it a little differently.
The people I know who disagree with me on the young earth issue will invariably admit that they do it ultimately on theological or biblical grounds. They may be looking for evidence to defend their position - but basically know that they are underdogs in the discussion.
They do not disagree on the basis of a real scientific argument.
There we go! That kind of response defends your position, states your perception of the people who disagree, and yet leaves them room to explain or defend themselves.
In my perception, the previous ones put opponents in a box, locks that box, and swallows the key.
The difference is, I think, the answer in how to act pastorally, and yet with integrity on your genuine, heartfelt, well considered, and honest beliefs about how life has developed in God's creation.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.