Recently in Science and Faith Category

Over the next couple of weeks or so I would like to look at two books, not new but fairly recent, that think through some ideas on body and soul. The first is by Kevin Corcoran, Rethinking Human Nature: A Christian Materialist Alternative to the Soul where he develops a constitution view of human persons.  Professor  Corcoran is a philosopher teaching at Calvin College specializing in philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion  - a philosopher who tries to connect philosophy with bible, theology, faith, and science.

The second book is by Joel Green, now a professor of New Testament interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary. His book  Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible looks at a biblical view of human nature and argues that a dualistic view of the human person  as material body and immaterial soul is inconsistent with both science and Scripture. Green is a biblical scholar who works to connect bible, theology, and faith with philosophy and science.

I, on the other hand, am a scientist who would like to connect science with philosophy, bible, theology, and faith. Join us it should be interesting.

To get this going let's start simple, with a little question.

What kind of things are we?

We began a discussion Tuesday on the real and perceived barriers to the acceptance of  an evolutionary mechanism of creation amongst evangelical theologians.  The basis for our discussion is a recent survey by Bruce Waltke (or here), an Old Testament scholar, author of a Genesis commentary and other books. The results of his survey are available here: Waltke Scholarly Essay.  

Waltke has a few conclusions and a few suggestions. These are well worth considering in some depth. The presentation that follows below is a paraphrase - not a quote from the white paper. The material is reorganized around three main themes according to my thinking at this time.

First - The caricature of evangelicalism as demanding Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a gross oversimplification Some 46% of the evangelical theologians surveyed are comfortable with evolutionary creation. More than half are comfortable with some form of old earth creation, evolutionary or progressive. Many have nuanced and carefully considered views. The same general trend is found in other surveys as well.  But it is a deep divide, and in some respects the division increases the heatedness of the discussion.

Like many evangelical OT scholars, Waltke sees a truth in Genesis that is goes beyond literal historicity.  Reflecting on the first barrier and the 44% who found the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 to be a barrier to acceptance of evolutionary creation Waltke notes:

The first barrier can be lowered, I suggest, by recognizing the two levels of literature: the historical story level and the interpretive, creative plot level. On the story level the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are historical; on the plot level they are creative representations of the historical reality.

[He uses an illustration of a glass half full of water, half full of air and continues] ... the additional creative element expresses truth beyond the historical reality. Similarly, the accounts of creation are based on real history, but presented creatively, using the form of ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies.

This is a big question for many of us these days.

What are the barriers to the acceptance of evolution amongst evangelicals? Can we (or should we) dismantle the "Great Wall" and overcome these barriers?

Biologos has planned a working group symposium (exclusive and invitation only or I would have it on my calendar as a must) to look at just this issue.  The workshop will bring together 15 leading scientists, 15 leading pastors and 15 leading theologians to explore this issue.  Tim Keller, Francis Collins, and Alister McGrath are among the "names" involved.

This is a critical conversation as we move forward - although I am convinced of both an old earth and an evolutionary mechanism of creation, this is not the end of the story.  The theological ramifications must be considered thoughtfully, prayerfully - and with pastoral sensitivity. We must have conversation amongst sisters and brothers - fellow believers.

As part of the preparation for this workshop Bruce Waltke (or here), Old Testament scholar, author of a Genesis commentary and other books, was commissioned to write a white paper identifying barriers for the typical evangelical theologians to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process.  The results of his research are available here: Waltke Scholarly Essay.  The results of his survey provide the focus for the discussion I would like to have today (and Thursday).

[We've added the captcha text because we were bombarded by a spammer Monday. We hope the captcha text will disappear with the spammer soon.]

Last week I posted a question by a reader asking about categories of biblical literature and their "wooden historicity". There was another aspect to the comment though, and another question well worth consideration.

The original comment continued...

Speaking of that RJS, this reminds me of something that you've said before in response to my question on why you believe a certain thing to be the case. Your response, on occasion, has been to say that this is what has been handed down in Christian tradition, from the early church on. But, following our discussion here, surely the early church and much of Christian tradition thought the weather was directly, and in real-time, controlled by God. So if we so easily question that assumption now, why not others? The tradition argument alone seems rather weak in that regard.

This leads to the question for today.

What role does tradition play in our interpretation of scripture and understanding of the faith?

(The picture above is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, the traditional site of the crucifixion and burial. We visited fall 2001 - when the lines were rather short.)