In the first posted white paper from our November workshop “In Search of a Theology of Celebration”, theologian Bruce Waltke presents eleven barriers for accepting creation through evolutionary means, as identified by evangelicals. Now in the second of the seven white papers — posted yesterday in our Scholarly Essays section — historian Mark Noll looks at the historical background of fifteen “attitudes, assumptions, and convictions” that lead modern evangelicals to actively combat modern science, and explains how the assumptions rose to prominence.
Noll divides these specific beliefs into several categories:
- Assumptions about metaphysical univocity, harmonization, natural theology, and the locus of problems when science and religion seem to clash.
- Convictions about the truth-telling character of the Bible.
- Attitudes or assumptions about the necessity of interpreting the Scriptures literally.
- The dangers of the modern research university.
- Belief that the public at large is the presumed best judge in issues of religion.
Throughout the essay, Noll carefully traces the emergence of these beliefs. He begins in the late 13th century with the work of Dun Scotus, a young contemporary of Aquinas who proposed that God’s actions towards humans can be understood by humans, and William of Ockham, whose famous “razor” deemed the simplest explanations of phenomena to be the best. Together, their work led to a general acceptance that once something can be explained as a natural occurrence, it cannot also be described in another realm.
Noll then continues through the birth and growth of the United States, tracing the unique interactions of democracy, freedom of religion, and a desire to shed the religious traditions of Europe, which led to many new assumptions about the proper relationship between religion, reason, tradition, and scripture. Noll also looks at the effects of the Civil War and World Wars I and II, as well as the rise of the belief that universities were “enemy territory” for evangelical Christianity. He ends with a look at the modern culture war of the evolution/creation dialogue.
Ultimately, it is this detailed historical analysis that allows Noll to accomplish what he sets out to do in the paper: to make it clear that “when conservative Protestants voice objections to different aspects of modern science, they do so for a complex set of well-established reasons”, and that “progress on this front probably depends most on increasing the number and quality of believing Christians who are willing to enter the world of university level science with commitments to historical Christianity and the modern practice of science firmly in place.”
posted November 24, 2009 at 9:17 am
This is a very helpful essay. The branch between Aquinas and Duns Scotus is key, particularly in relation to contemporary natural theologies such as ID. The next thread to pick up is Barth’s rejection of natural theology and contemporary amendations of Barth such as Thomas Torrance and Alister McGrath.
posted November 24, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Interesting essay. I wondered about this point:
Historically considered, the modern strength of young-earth Creation Science is almost entirely explainable as the continuation of former predispositions. To be sure, skillful publications like John Whitcomb and Henry Morris’ The Genesis Flood, which appeared in 1961, have added new elements to the mix.
My impression from elsewhere was that YEC had re-entered mainstream Christianity relatively recently, publication of The Genesis Flood being a key event, after being hatched within Seventh Day Adventism. The essay has nothing to say about sects such as Adventism, Mormonism, Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses, which don’t seem quite to fit its picture of American Christinaity.
posted November 24, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The essay has nothing to say about sects such as Adventism, Mormonism, Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses, which don’t seem quite to fit its picture of American Christinaity.
- Knockgoats
November 24, 2009 12:11 PM
///
The Apostolic witness (the New Testament) shows who and what fits in its picture of Judean Christianity. That supercedes “American” and European Christianity.
The advocates of Mormonism, Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses have chosen to disagree with the theology of the Apostles and Christ Jesus.
posted November 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The Design Spectrum
This is helpful, for what it is. However, the scope is fairly limited. It seems rather strange that he did not examine the other side of the equation, which is the history of science, science dominated by philosophical naturalism, science used to promote philosophical naturalism, scientific pretensions and misuse, the eugenics movement, etc. I recommend Marsden’s “The Soul of the American University” to give a more complete picture.
posted November 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Mark Noll also did not say much about Intelligent Design. If anyone is interested in the positive things he has said about Intelligent Design in the past, I have posted some quotes and references here:
http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/mark-noll-on-intelligent-design/
If anyone knows of a more detailed treatment, please leave a comment there.
posted November 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm
The advocates of Mormonism, Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses have chosen to disagree with the theology of the Apostles and Christ Jesus. – Mere_Halfwit
We don’t, of course, have much idea what Jesus or the apostles (if you are referring to the twelve) thought, but that’s by the way. These sects have been a significant part of American religion, and particularly in the case of Seventh Day Adventism, have had an important influence on American creationism. It would therefore make sense to discuss them in a historical essay on that topic. Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?
posted November 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm
BTW, for those still trying to guess “Knockgoats’” background, it’s psychology and artificial intelligence — right?
posted November 24, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Tsk, tsk, dopderbeck – that would seem to have nothing to do with the topic of thee thread.
posted November 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm
True but it’s more fun.
posted November 24, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Not very difficult when your BioLogos chums have my email address, of course. Or did you obtain the information by prayer?
posted November 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm
No one gave me your info.
posted November 24, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Ah. I see where you got it. Even less deeply hidden than I thought!
posted November 24, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Dear, dear, the post with the most interesting content (if you click on the link and read the essay) of any since I’ve been commenting here, and no-one except dopderbeck and me have made any reference to it. Anyone have any comment on what either of us said, or anything else related to the essay? (No, not you, Mere_Halfwit, Noddy in Toyland is more your intellectual level.) Another couple of aspects I’d like to have seen explored with respect to the recent past:
1) The rise of the “Rapture” industry, including the extraordinary sales of tripe such as the “Left Behind” series (an almost purely US phenomenon, and not because readers elsewhere don’t want tripe – they just don’t want that sort of tripe); and
2) The growth of increasingly wacky conspiracy theories on the religious right. Linked to (1) of course, and not exclusive to the religious right, but both most hilarious and most alarming there: UN black helicopters, the NAU and the amero, Obama the commie Kenyan Muslin atheist Antichrist, etc., etc., etc.
posted November 24, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Sorry, pds also referred to it.
posted November 25, 2009 at 9:37 am
KG — I think you’re correct to link the trends Noll mentions to the “Rapture” industry. The same supposedly “common sense” reading of the Bible that leads to young earth creationism tends to lead to the extremes of some dispensational premillennial interpretations. And I think you’re also correct to tie these things together into the conspiracy theory mindset. It’s a very unfortunate sub-culture worldview of suspicion / withdrawal / attack the remains pervasive in North American popular evangelicalism, and that feeds on and feeds into our equally unfortunately tabloid talk radio / Fox News culture. I’m very grateful that folks such as Noll have been doing the patient historical spadework needed to help us evangelicals to understand these trends and to try to correct them.
posted November 25, 2009 at 10:01 am
Dopderbeck,
Looking at the essay again, Noll himself briefly links literalism w.r.t. Genesis to the same w.r.t. revelation. Another interesting point, though beyond the scope of the essay, is that young-Earth creationism has spread into Judaism and Islam – religious fundamentalisms, at least within the Abrahamic religions, have deep similarities. But the fundamentalists are right in their conviction that critical reason and “revelation” are irreconcilable – and it’s clear to me from your own words that you, and the BioLogos crew, will always put your religious loyalties first. That’s what any True Christian@trade must do, and that’s why I oppose Christianity root and branch.