And all God’s people said…
Amen.

Nice, but I was expecting something with a little more specificity.

The BioLogos Foundation is engaged in the continuation of an old project: “Has God Indeed Said?”.
There are more than enough scientists now and in the past who have no problem at all with “faith and science” and their “reconciliation”.
What these fellows are about essentially is encouraging the enfolding into the evangelical Christian faith, specifically everything its authoritative text says about origins, of Neo-Darwinian evolution.
The Church of Christ, or if you like God’s elect people, have throughout history, been tempted by various forms of syncretism, from goat and calf idols of Egypt, to Moabite sexual licentiousness, to Ba’al worship, to burning their children to Molech, to Worshipping the emperor as god, to Platonism, Mysticism, Gnosticism, Monasticism, the Divine Right of Kings, to Thomism (Aquinas’ monumental attempt to integrate Aristotelianism with Medieval Catholicism) to Pilgrimmages to Relics, to Higher Criticism, and now, to evolutionism, an old and very pagan idea.
All this name-dropping is very fine, but perhaps it is merely proof that some of us, like Hezekiah, simply live too long?
Do not be quick to lay hands on a man — and beware, Francis Collins, when all men speak well of you.

I am very excited to follow your comments on the Biologos conference on science and faith. The need for this conversation is dire – at least in many evangelical circles. Thanks, Scot.

Looking forward to more of the documents that will be made available by these Christians. I value the phrase “origins in God” as a way to tie faith and science together. Makes for a good foundation.

Scott, Problem is that man thinks his logic and his limited understanding is the center of the universe.
I like the idea that Truth and Christian Faith are ONE and obviously not contradictory, but modern intellectualism disguised as “science” by dogmatic atheists has its premise in the same humanism that led to 25,000 modern denominations among those going by the name of Christian. Wonder if it is not vital to first separate the premise of science as holding the optimal place it holds today before jumping into that paradigm as the closed outer limits that tries to put all Truths in a box.
Charles, the idea that committing one’s life to prayer day and night (monasticism) or the belief that Elijah’s bones had the power from God to even raise the dead (i.e. Power of God by Grace in some Relics) , may sound unscholarly to the eyes that lack faith, but to equate them with the heresy of denying Christ’s physical existene (gnosticism) and a life devoted to sexual sins is not only scientifically illogical but directly goes against the Original and continuing faithful Christian practice of the faithful Martyrs and Pastors of our ONE Faith.

While the conflict between faith and science is much exaggerated for it to move beyond a mere motherhood statement the significant challenges do need to be acknowledged.

RJS
Thank you for leading great discussions on Science & Faith
Would be it worth engaging sometime with the sort of book just out (IVP) that seems directly aimed at people who are arguing for an integration of evolution and Christian faith – like BioLogos and specifically Denis Alexander?s ‘Creation and Evolution Do We Have to Choose?’
http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844744060?utm_source=1006&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1060
[PS tried emailing but returned]

Patrick,
I don’t know why the e-mail was returned, must have been a glitch. If the book becomes available in the US, I’ll take a look. It isn’t my intention to only discuss those I agree with.
Matt and Patrick C,
Absolutely we need more than this rather bland statement – but it is a start. The names of the participants on the list is more significant.

Anthony, you rightly assert that man’s logic and understanding are limited with respect to his observation of nature. Is it also true that his understanding is limited with respect to his interpretation of Scripture? Must we not have the humility to adjust our interpretation when the abundance of evidence requires it? I think that is the central question in this debate.

RJS
I was somewhat startled while reading the Times Literary Supplement this lunchtime to see that the philosopher Thomas Nagel chooses Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell as one of his two favourite books of the year! I see this has already caused quite a stir online (IDers are in raptures; their critics are grinding their teeth and saying not very nice things about Prof Nagel). What I’m wondering is whether there is room for rapprochement between Meyer and Collins, IDers and theistic evolutionists. Isn’t someone like Meyer far closer to Collins than to Ken Ham? And isn’t Collins far closer to Meyer than to Richard Dawkins? Yet IDers and TEists seem committed to never saying anything nice about each other. If they ended their Cold War, couldn’t they outflank popular creationism and challenge philosophical naturalism more effectively? Any thoughts?

#13,
I have Meyer’s book – the publisher was kind enough to send a copy. It is long. I will begin a series on it sometime soon – in the next few weeks. I am busy just now with a major proposal due next week and normal end of the term meeting and teaching duties, so I have not started to read it yet.

I certainly think that IDers and TEists can have much in common if the shared goal is to view and celebrate the infinite beauty of God’s design as demonstrated in nature (the heavens declare the glory of God.) However, I’m afraid that ID as a movement is more fundamentally in step with popular creationism, in that its primary purpose is to “prove” evolution wrong. This betrays an assumption that God’s design cannot be seen in processes that are naturally explainable. There are Scriptural examples of praising God’s marvelous handiwork in processes that most Christians agree are both fully explainable scientifically and deeply reflective of Providence. These include the conception, development, and birth of a child and the movement and patterns of weather. None of us feels compelled to look for instances of direct, supernatural intervention in these processes in order to prove they display His works. Perhaps this is because they don’t threaten our preconceptions in the way that evolution appears to.

The list of people is impressive, and it is a nice statement. But the statement is “motherhood and apple pie” — hard to imagine any reasonable Christian not agreeing.
I guess I had higher hopes, and maybe more will come out of the continuing discussion. But I could have hoped for two additional helpful things to come from such a meeting:
1) Without naming names, expressing regret for the significant degree to which Evangelical Christians in the past 100 years have failed to observe the spirit of that nice statement.
2) Acknowledgment that the two “big” findings of science that sometimes cause trouble (ancient Earth, common descent) are NOT INCOMPATIBLE with Christian orthodoxy. [NOTE that I would not ask for agreement with the science, which most pastors and theologians would not be qualified to judge anyway, just a simple "IF God did his creative work that way, it's OK"]
I think that unless/until the Evangelical church can get to the place described in my #2 above, attitudes of the church toward science will continue to be a big stumbling block to the Gospel.

AHH, agreed, I think that would be a bare minimum.

AHH,
I agree, but I think that it is important to start a discussion and work forward slowly. Things will change, but the discussion has to be focused in the right direction – on the right issues. No small group is going to make the difference alone.
And – I don’t think we need any more “I’m a scientist and a Christian and evolution and faith are consistent” books. Collins’s book was an important contribution, as was Falks’s – but the hard work has moved to a different front. We need books or resources that look at the interaction with faith and theology.

RJS @16,
Agreed that it is probably better to interpret this as a good start rather than as a finish that falls short.
Also agreed that more books by Christian scientists will not do much to “move the pile” at this point (although we can still have local impacts as people who know us see us accept scientific results without being heretics).
There is already good work on the Biblical and theological side — Enns, Walton, McGrath, Polkinghorne, etc. But I’m not sure how much impact such work has on rank-and-file Evangelicalism — maybe indirectly as people start learning different things in seminary.
Popular preachers and writers tend to have the most immediate impact, which is why Tim Keller’s semi-endorsement of theistic evolution in The Reason for God was a big deal.

AHH,
Getting popular preachers, writers on board is important.
Scot has been known to advocate the importance of theologians and scholars writing for the church – not just for scholars. And seminary students don’t always succeed in integrating what they learn when they get to a church.
I think that we need some collaboration here between biblical scholars, theologians and scientists to write for the church – at a popular level, but rigorous.

I would just like to say that RJS?s analysis is spot-on as I see it. We were delighted to get a statement from the meeting; it took significant courage for some in attendance to sign it, (innocuous as it seems), and we all understood why several in attendance felt they couldn?t sign at this time. We don?t need any more church-splits in Protestantism. Various churches and pastors need to work through this issue at a rate with which they are comfortable.
That?s why RJS is correct that the focus now increasingly needs to move to theology. The science is clear, but for many who genuinely want to understand, there are theological issues that have not yet been adequately addressed. We all need to be patient with each other as we work through the issues. Under the guidance of God?s spirit, truth will prevail as long as we are patient with one another, and remain determined to preserve the sense of oneness that defines Christ?s followers.
Darrel Falk

Darrel,
Thanks for your perspective and comment. This is an important issue.
I think we need the hard work on theology, but it needs to be collaborative. It needs to involve scientists keeping this “real” and theologians, biblical scholars keeping the discussion focused on the real questions.
It won’t do to ignore facts because they don’t fit theology or vice versa. My starting point is simple. I believe the gospel story and I must take the science seriously. No blissful ignorance and dismissal.

Dr. Falk,
Thanks for stopping by and giving further explanation. [And thanks for your book Coming to Peace with Science that I recommend to people all the time.] I guess we Christians in science who feel so beaten down on this front as anti-evolution propaganda gets pushed in Evangelical circles need to have patience and trust that we can get where we need to be by moving forward with a constructive and gentle spirit.
But one thing you said raises my curiosity — although I’d understand if you feel you shouldn’t elaborate.
You indicate that several attendees would not sign that innocuous statement. What aspect or aspects of the statement was it that some people did not feel like they could assent to? Or was it more a matter of not wanting to appear to “consort with the enemy” by seeming to agree with people who don’t see evolution as an enemy of faith?

AHH,
I would expect that the concern lies here: We affirm that the truths of Scripture and the truths of nature both have their origins in God, …
This is completely innocuous except … except that in context the implication is that evolution is a truth of nature. It is one thing to affirm that the truths of nature have their origin in God – it is another thing altogether to affirm any thing specific about these truths – or to place such an affirmation of truth on par with special revelation in scripture.
This is why I think we really need a partnership on a personal level – meaning that theologians cannot for theological reasons dismiss the science, and scientists cannot, for scientific reasons, brush off the theological implications. And neither scientists nor theologians can play free and easy with scripture – we need Biblical scholars, like Enns and Walton and Wright and McKnight in the conversation as well. Maybe we need historians like Noll as well who can help us understand how we got to the current place.
I am sounding like a broken record here – but this is an issue I have thought a great deal about (no surprise I expect).
What I find most troublesome is an approach that starts with theology – and then, dismisses Enns’s scholarship on the OT because it doesn’t fit the theological framework; or an approach that starts with a theology of death and sin and then dismisses evolution because it does not fit that theology.
I think we need to start here:
(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth
(2) God has revealed himself in his creation and in his interaction with his creatures. Scripture is a gift that sheds light on the nature of God and his interaction with his creation.
(3) The life death and resurrection of Jesus is a (the?) defining moment in history where God incarnate came into creation to redeem it (and we can discuss exactly what this means).
(4) All truth is God’s truth and all truths have their origins in God.
We now work forward.
It is not quite as simple as I’ve put forth as there is some circular reasoning in here … but it is as good as I can do at this point.
Anyway, I’ve rambled and extended my imitation of a broken record. Perhaps I’ll have to put together a post to address this in a coherent fashion and open a conversation.

I am sympathetic with the efforts that produced the statement, but there is still a clear cut battle in evangelical(Fundamentalist) minds.
“Many voices in our current culture assert that there are irreconcilable conflicts between science and faith in Christ”. These voices claim to have the facts (evidence) on their side.
For example: (http://www.creationministries.org/). Russ’s (Russ Miller) motto is: “You don’t have to believe anything that I tell you. All I ask is that you look at what I can show you and weigh it against anything that has you believing in anything other than what the Bible says.” For anyone who does so, it is, as Russ says, a “no brainer.”
We need to continue to hammer at the evidence. Apparently there are not convincing answers to many questions.
What does the Bible say?
Are there intermediate fossils?
Does our genomic similarity to other organisms prove or disprove common descent?
Grand Canyon geology shows what?
I hope scientists who are Christians continue to address the scientific evidence. Maybe we need pamphlets addressed to each ongoing question. Can the anti-intellectualism and cognitive dissonance of many Christian groups be overcome?

Thanks Dr. B. 24 Years ago at MIT, I was confronted by an atheist paleontologist on the scientific impossibility of macroevolution. After watching 50 debates lost by evolutionary proponents to Scientific Creationists, his main concern was that so many hoaxes have led the scientific community to dogmatically hold to an indefensible evolutionary hypothesis that he was afraid we would be taken over by creationists. So, he wanted scientists to follow the facts, specially the fossil records, and walk away from the evolutionary dogma into scientific alternatives to Scientific Creationism. Unfortunately for him, most have become more dogmatic in their postions since then.
Reality as shown by the recent leaked emails from the global warming scientists show us that real science is extermely limited in scope and too many who exalt man as the center of their thoughts end up following the blind into an abyss of darkness.
For the faithful, we have a great record of what The Holy Spirit taught The Church for the last 2000 years in a great compilation in “Genesis, Creation, and Early Man” by Seraphim Rose.
Ultimately, we must either accept The Holy Trinity as the ONE Who leads us and humble ourselves to God or be led by another peking man hoax for a few more sad years.
Empirical science needs a time machine to show us what happened while Christians have an eye witness account already. Now, whether some trust The eye witness account and follow where God leads, is the question.
While voltaire cried out God is dead and thought humanism was alive, reality is that humanism has failed miserably and God continues to grant Eternal Life for those who Trust Him and follow Him in the path of Royal Love.