Darrel Falk begins his paper "Barriers to Accepting the Possibility of Creation by Means of an Evolutionary Process: III. Concerns of the Typical Agnostic Scientist" (the fourth posted white paper from our November workshop) by describing a breakfast conversation he had with a former student who had abandoned her faith after going to graduate school. As the paragraph above shows, the student felt that the bubble created by some Christians to supposedly "protect" themselves from the world outside had become a barrier to her instead, making it impossible for her to ever return to the faith of her youth.As I drank my coffee and munched on my toast I felt a little lonely as I adjusted to this new person sitting across from me. She was bitter. The Church, she felt, had lied to her. Having purposely distorted the real world, it had kept her enclosed in the bubble. Upon emergence, she looked back and saw the layers around it, not as a protective shield, but as impenetrable barriers which would forever prevent her re-entry. She would never go back. She had lived in a fairy-tale world. I was no longer her mentor. I was a perpetrator of that which she now regarded as an ephemeral event--a dream in her past.
Lamentably, as Falk notes, the layers of this bubble come not from the Bible itself, but are artificially propped up by our own Christian culture. His paper looks at five of these artificially constructed layers, which unnecessarily serve to block the entry -- or reentry -- of agnostic scientists into the realm of evangelicalism.
According to Falk, the five layers of this bubble are:
The full paper discusses these layers in further detail, explaining how they come from human rather than scriptural construction. Ultimately, as Falk concludes, it is the task of the church to remove those layers that will continue to have devastating consequences on human life unless steps are taken to remove them now. Until then, many more may find that the bubble which once protected their faith now makes it impossible for them to return to it.
- The story of Adam and Eve must be viewed as history
- A God who is love would not create through a process that includes suffering and death
- Science explains it all--there is no need for God in the history of life
- Augustine's Warning (against using scripture in matters in which a speaker knows relatively little)
- As it relates to science and faith, Christians are perceived as people who distort facts and lack integrity
Falk's essay, along with several other white papers from our November workshop, can be found in our Scholarly Essays section.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Sorry, the comma got included in the Baylor link. Here it is again:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/Baylor_paperlinks.html
And, for a graphic demonstration of self-sacrifice in 'lower' animals, see here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/dogs_can_be_good_without_god.php
////
Where in nature are we seeing "animals" (other than humans) setting up memorials to their dead children or parents?
If the heroic "dog" were to discover his victim dead, he would not mourn the loss by becoming a social activist to implement a dog crossing safety program. He would stay a dog doing dog things.
He merely tried to "save" a pack member. Did he scream for help or curse the injustice of it all?
Do you know of any dogs telling the story????
And if his heroics were not rewarded by a pal saved, his life would go on with no signs of moral dilemma other than maybe imprinting that he shouldn't go into traffic himself for fear of being killed or maimed. That's why its not a bad idea to smack a dog with a rolled up newspaper when they crap on your carpet. And notice they are happy to play with you ten-seconds after you beat them?
Now, is the fact that your dog stops defecating on your floor after you "punish" it, signs of intelligence the same value as ours?
Are there any Dolphins turning aside to flesh and eating only seaweed because they feel intense guilt for killing fish?
Lions becoming monks? Yes, yes, the lioness and the baby gazelles. Eaten by other lions. But no where did she sue or press charges on her fellow lions.
Monkeys in the amazon advocating for Jaguar rights?
C'mon now.
Janet
Thank you for response.
I am still not sure if I understand how a completely natural origin of beings can include God. It would seem that if this is the case then it would be robbing God of his sovereignty. In my mind it would be like me getting glory for the Dallas Cowboys winning the game. I may have watched the game, but I had no control over the players on the field. If this is the case why would I deserve praise for the victory? If this parallel is correct then why would God deserve praise for creation? We know in scripture, Romans 1, that He does deserve adoration and that God can be seen in the creation. I also struggle with saying that God is the author of creation or the sustainer of creation if He is not the originator.
Now, all this is void if you believe that God is the originator of nature. And if that is the case then it does not seem like you consider evolution a natural cause, but a supernatural plan that God laid out. Again if there is no intelligence behind nature, then why should we give praise to God for his lack of work?
Thanks again for helping me answer these questions.
I have not had time to follow the other links that were given, but I will.
Hope you have a good day.
Buck.
Buck,
Now, all this is void if you believe that God is the originator of nature.
I do believe that God is the originator of nature, that God "wrote" all the laws of nature from the gravitational constant to the periodic table, and on and on. I think that John 1:3 and Col 1:15-17 support this.
How would you define supernatural? Do you see any act of God as being supernatural? I think of supernatural events as being those in which God intervenes in the world in ways that are not subtle (to use Falk's terminology in Layer #3), such as Jesus' resurrection.
Consider yourself - you are an agent who can act upon the world and change the course of events, and you are acting within the laws of nature. I think usually when God acts, it is in more subtle ways like this (Falk used the story of Joseph in Genesis as an example). I don't think we should say that God acts only in ways that are obvious. For example, miracles can be a matter of timing; they do not have to have obvious supernatural causes.
So I consider evolution to be a natural plan that God laid out. Because God works through natural activities as well as supernatural, it makes sense to me that God could have used the natural process of evolution to make a being in His own image.
With regard to the 3rd layer of the bubble: Science explains it all.
Us scientists humbly accept that this is far from the truth. We would not have jobs if this were the case. It is only when scientists find evidence to support claims that we discover more of the truth. As an ex-Christian, I now ask myself: How can one distinguish natural processes that are yet to be discovered by humanity from processes explained within the Bible (such as what happens after death)? The truth is, it is not possible to distinguish the two so one must either say "we don't know" or "we will accept what we are told by the Bible, even though there is no evidence to support such a belief" (faith).
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.