The Biologos Foundation ran an invitation only workshop earlier this month on the issues of science and faith - evangelical faith. They are posting a number of the papers considered over the next several weeks both on the Biologos site and for consideration on the blog Science and the Sacred. I will interact with much of this material and open it for discussion here. (We already had a fine discussion of Bruce Waltke's white paper: One, Two).
Yesterday they posted a statement - and a list of the participants in the workshop. It is an impressive list. And includes both male and female participants from a broad range of evangelicalism and includes 10 of the people I would most like to be in a room with - from Francis Collins to NT Wright, Dallas Willard, Pete Enns, Mark Noll, Bill Phillips, Earl Palmer, Tim Keller, Owen Gingerich, John Walton, Darrel Falk and more. We have much to look forward to.
Today lets just look at the statement (it is after all Thanksgiving in the US at least):
Many voices in our current culture assert that there are irreconcilable conflicts between science and faith in Christ. We, the undersigned Christian pastors, theologians, scientists, and other scholars, respectfully disagree. We have learned much from each other during these days of communal prayer, presentation, discussion, and worship, but we also recognize that we have much more to learn and many others from whom to learn. We affirm that the truths of Scripture and the truths of nature both have their origins in God, and that further exploration of all these truths can enrich our joyful and worshipful appreciation of the Creator's love, goodness, and grace. We commit to exploring these important issues further.
Thanksgiving is an appropriate time to post this... I for one, am thankful that this discussion is being held at a high level, taking science and faith seriously. We need this as we move forward.
What do you think of this statement?
If you wish to contact me, 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
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.
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.