Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has openly made the statement that Evolution and Christianity are at odds. His statement at the 2010 Ligonier Conference was, "The theory of evolution is incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures." This, of course, has caused no small stir. Dr. Mohler points to an article in The Washington Post by Rachel Held Evans who complains about Mohler's statement. She is upset, in fact, that on this point "atheists and Baptists agree".
Recounting her own odyssey of discovery, she grew up thinking the same thing until she began studying Evolution for herself. For her, things like "DNA sequences" and "biodiversity" were compelling evidence in favor of Evolution and she nearly lost her faith.
Evans expresses this concern: "What leaders like Mohler fail to realize is that they are setting young Christians up for failure. They are inadvertently orchestrating the very exodus that they fear. In presenting faith and science as a choice, the Baptists have essentially conceded that the atheists are right after all, and as a result they are losing some of the brightest young minds in Christendom to a false dichotomy."
I see two issues here. First, while I have seen this framed over and over again in this light, it is not accurate. It is, in fact, quite misleading. The presentation is not "faith and science as a choice". It is not a dichotomy of faith and science. That's how it is presented over and over. That is not the issue. So often has that been presented that it has become "standard knowledge" that faith and science are opposed, that faith and reason are thoroughly and necessarily disconnected. And this "standard knowledge" is wrong. The point is not a dichotomy of faith and science. The dichotomy is faith and the current claims of a scientific discipline with a presupposition of naturalism, of physicalism. That is, faith does not require that science is wrong. It is simply saying that there is reason to question some of the current positions being taken by some people working in the realm of science. And it's a funny thing, too, because skeptics of Christianity often point to this very aspect of scientific endeavor as its strength. "Science never assumes it is right; it is always questioning itself." So faith questions science ... and that's bad?
Here's the other issue. Christians are promised that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing", that "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." We are promised that the world systems will hate Christianity just as they hated Christ. We know that "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." We know this stuff. So why does it become encumbent upon us to make sure that a proper understanding of Scripture is aligned with the current mode of thinking of science? Worse, if the current views of science do indeed lie in opposition to the Gospel (and they do), is the proper response to jettison the Gospel to avoid "losing some of the brightest young minds in Christendom"? If there is an exodus from Christianity, doesn't the Bible tell us "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us"?
Dr. Mohler points out in his blog that people like Evans don't really grasp that aligning biblical theology with current scientific views on Evolution (which, oh, by the way, mandate "no God" -- ask Stephen Hawking) will result in a negation of biblical theology. He's right. I ask a different but related question. Is it the goal of Christians (followers of Christ) to keep "the brightest young minds in Christendom" or is it the goal to be faithful to Christianity? At what point do we decide "Well, I suppose we're just going to be at odds with the world's views"? Because if we really want to keep people in "Christianity", it seems like it would be pretty simple. Just make it a world mimic. Shape Christianity into whatever draws in people, right? Of course, it's not Christianity anymore at that point, but, hey, it met the goal, right? Perhaps that's not a good goal.
13 comments:
The elephant in the room here is that Evolution (meaning the gradual advance of change due to chance) is bad science. Scientists are erring by suspending the need for cause and effect. It's like saying the cold forced me to move to Florida in the 80s. Wrong. I decided to come here just as the programming of a being guides its possible responses to its environment. Beyond that, evolution has been so generalized that it has become an explanation of all things when it really explains nothing. It's no different than anti-intellectual Christians saying "God did it" to everything. One "History" Channel piece declared a statement explaining the Cambrian explosion that always stayed with me: "Evolution was in full swing." How can Evolution be "in full swing"? It's a joke.
A scientist blogger taught me a valuable principle that totally eliminated the faith v. science fallacy for me. He said that we must presume that Scripture AND Science. Where there is a discrepancy we must look for a flaw in either the scientific interpretation or evidence or the scriptural interpretation.
For example: The 6,000-year-old earth concept clashes with what we can plainly see in verifiable scientific evidence. A thorough Scripture review reveals that it is a bad interpretation for a number of reasons. In the same way, if Evolution says there is nothing guiding change except outside influences and the Bible says it's God, then a close examination reveals that Evolution is a bad scientific interpretation because it is unscientific. Something that is clearly designed and can be tested to be designed cannot be explained away as chance or dumb luck.
Christians look very bad when we fail to put the truth first. I know many Christian brothers are invested in the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old. Job 38 and the repeated use of numbers for symbolic meaning in the ancient texts along with the irrelevance to salvation of believing either way make Young Earth a bad interpretation. We should not care that people like Answers in Genesis are invested in it. But as Americans we are impressed with numbers, and for that reason, A-I-G is invited to "Big Tent Christian" reunions. And that feeds the secularists' prejudice that faith is in opposition to science.
Jim Jordan: "Where there is a discrepancy we must look for a flaw in either the scientific interpretation or evidence or the scriptural interpretation."
Important point there, Jim. While I would necessarily rule out a mistake in Scripture, a flaw in scriptural interpretation is entirely possible.
Jim Jordan: "The 6,000-year-old earth concept clashes with what we can plainly see in verifiable scientific evidence."
First, I will say that "the 6,000-year-old earth" concept is hard to maintain ... biblically. It is easy to maintain if someone aligns himself with Bishop Usher (the guy responsible for putting dates at the top of some KJV Bibles), but the text itself doesn't require it, and too much doesn't support it. Second, I am not taking a position here; I'm asking a question. What "verifiable scientific evidence" would you cite to plainly demonstrate the age of the earth?
Scientific endeavor was started BECAUSE the scientists believed there was a rational, orderly, Creator. They saw that God had created an orderly universe, and because it was orderly, it was able to be studied. Scientific study should make us look at the functions of the subject and say,"Wow, what an amazing thing God did here." There is no reason to say that science and faith are diametrically opposed. Some scientific ideas (Evolution is not really a scientific theory based on the definition of a scientific theory) are anti-religious, but so are many moral ideas, or ethical ideas, or cultural ideas.
It is amazing how quickly many retreat into their gray fortresses when moral issues are discussed, but charge out like knights in black and white armor on the issue of evolution. If there was ever an issue that warranted the humility that should accompany ignorance, evolution would seem to be it. Let's face, even the most ardent of evolutionist when pressed has to admit that evolution has really never graduated from its theory status. But, of coarse, this is not the case. This is because hiding under the cover of the scientifically complex and strident assertions of evolution lies no less a faith than the supposed anti-science faithers they disparage. And challenges to their beloved religion cannot be tolerated.
As for most Christians, they are simply not qualified to sustain a defense of their faith from an onslaught from the religion of evolution. Telling however is how quickly ad hominum fallacies are resorted to when a fellow and accomplished biologist puts up a good defense. Also telling is the specious history of the "science" of evolution and its faked evidences, and its furtive transition from theory to fact; not the earmarks of a discipline confident in its conclusions.
You hit the nail on the head, Stan, in this article however. There always seems to be the tendency as we attempt to run the race with perseverance that the race becomes the goal. We are warned about this in scripture and are admonished to fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, lest we get side tracked and fix our eyes on something less, like fitting in and trying desperately to not appear as depicted satanically in the many caricatures of Christianity that fill our minds.
David,
Given that Evolution (capital "E") by its definition removes God from the equation, you're absolutely right that it is anti-religious. That's why I cannot fathom why it is that Christians like to argue for it.
Danny,
Eloquently put. You really ought to write a blog. Oh, wait, you do! So ... coffee?
That's why I cannot fathom why it is that Christians like to argue for it.
Perhaps because they're not really Christians (i.e. the nominal sort). No one who has had a genuine encounter with God would embrace a doctrine that denies Him.
Stan writes, “The dichotomy is faith and the CURRENT claims of a scientific discipline…”
Evolution is not nice. Evolution is not pretty. I am sure that biologists will be tweaking technical details of evolutionary theory for decades to come, but I very much doubt that their theory 100 years hence will make the evolutionary process smell like a rose. Carnivores, predation, parasites, disease. Ugly stuff, it is. So when Hank Hanegraaff quotes a biologist on how awful of a mistake it is for believers to say that an evolving biosphere is compatible with a loving god and his plans for living things, I am completely in Hanegraaff’s corner. (If anyone is interested, I will look for the quote of the biologist and post it here.)
--Lee
I like that. "Tweaking technical details." Like the way they figured out that Darwin's original scheme wasn't viable and had to replace it with a new one? (Darwin figured on a gradual process. Lacking "missing links", science had to replace that theory with things like "punctuated equilibrium.") And now they've found that it seems that the whole concept of passing on dominate traits doesn't seem to work nearly as well as they thought. You know, like one of the key components. Meanwhile, some in science are saying, "This doesn't make any sense at all! How could we, for instance, have developed a system like the eye or the pulmonary system or so many other irreducible complexities at all?" Is that what you mean by "tweaking technical details"?
Stan, thanks for that link. It seems at odds with something that I read in a ‘Discover’ or ‘Scientific American’ or 'American Scientist' article a year or two back, on the Galapagos finch studies of Peter and Rosemary Grant. I just did a Net search for them, and here is a brief item at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant
I am an interested layman when it comes to science. I will leave it to someone more expert than I to balance the relative merits of the two studies.
Stan writes, “How could we, for instance, have developed a system like the eye…”
Another Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Stan, I can tell that you are not buying into macroevolution. For reasons that I mentioned yesterday, I have more respect for the type of Christian that you are than the lah-dee-dah type of Christian who says, “Okay, that’s fine” to macroevolution.
-Lee
Stan, which of these two statements sounds more likely to you? (If neither appeals to you, by all means give some other alternative.)
1) God extended His maximal effort in ensuring that the evidence in the ground points toward special creation and away from evolution.
2) God planted some false evidence in the ground to point somewhat toward evolution, as a test of whether we would stay true to His Word.
(By “evidence in the ground” I am talking about rubidium/strontium ratios, varves, magnetic fields in seafloor spreading zones, fossilized bones, fossilized eggs, hardened imprints of feathers and scales, and so forth.)
Here is a bonus question that you might have fun with: Is extraterrestrial life compatible with an honest reading of the Bible? The branch of science that is entering its golden age right now is the telescopic discovery of planets around other stars than our own Sun. And yeah, they're a long way from finding evidence for life, but...
I might have one more comment to make next week, but I am about to stop pestering you on this particular topic at your site, as well as the voice-of-God topic.
--Lee
Neither appeals to me. You sound like you expect God to be in the business of planting evidence (true or false). "You know, if there is a God, it would seem that His primary concern would be to make sure the evidence points to His existence." No, not getting it. But it is amusing that you would think that your approach to the question is unbiased. And this, like so many others, falls in the category of "I won't believe in God unless He meets my requirements."
It's odd about your question about extraterrestrial life. It's the second time I've seen the question this week. I am really confused about 1) the question, 2) what possible "reading of the Bible" would lead to it, and 3) how in the world you would have an opinion on "an honest reading of the Bible" when you admit you haven't done it, at least not in a long while. I've personally never found anything that would suggest anything at all about life on other planets, for or against. You have? Or ... maybe not.
I mentioned to the other person about the same question an interesting trilogy written by the famous Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis. His space trilogy included a book about life on Mars as well as life on Venus. Fiction, sure, but Lewis didn't seem to think that it was a problem to Christianity.
Regarding the bonus question, I am not prepared to point to a particular passage in scripture. Rather, it was the impression I got from my church that basically the whole point of God’s creation was to make a species (us humans) who would serve and worship and love Him. I strongly suspect that the writers of the Bible would have argued with anybody back then who tried to suggest that the earth’s mass is tiny compared to the collective masses of the objects in the sky. (Look up the definition of ‘firmament’ if you don’t already know it.) I went through an adolescent phase of reading science fiction, but I sometimes felt guilty about it for the reason that alien races were inconsistent with humans being at the center of the Creator’s world. Also, the far-future settings of some science fiction bothered me, since they did not seem consistent with the promise of “the soon return of Christ.”
Stan asked Jim, “What ‘verifiable scientific evidence’ would you cite to plainly demonstrate the age of the earth?”
I was hoping Jim would give an answer to that. Keep an eye out at a library or a used bookstore for these:
Principles of Physical Cosmology, P.J.E. Peebles
Did Man Create God?, David Comings
Lucy, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey
books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov
Stan wrote, “I am not taking a position here,” which tells me he may not be interested in the following challenge. But if any believer who is committed to young earthism cares to, would you look at the following items from Natural History and place each of them into one of these four categories? 1) It happened, and the timing sounds about right; 2) It happened, but the timing is way off; 3) It never happened; or 4) I have no idea if it happened.
29 years the most recent Mt. Saint Helens eruption
950 years eruption of Sunset Crater cinder cone in Arizona
13,000 years Mars meteorite ALH 84001 hits Antarctica
50,000 years impact that formed Meteor Crater in Arizona
640,000 years most recent Yellowstone caldera eruption
15 million years large meteorite hits Mars and throws off debris including the small chunk ALH 84001
65 million years Chicxulub Yucatan asteroid impact
4.45 billion years collision of planet-sized body with Earth, throwing out material which formed the Moon
4.5 billion years formation of molten Earth from accreting disk around the Sun
It is not my intention to come back here and argue against anybody’s categorization of these supposed events, but I will read with interest any answers given. In years past I have asked two other believers to do this, but both of them declined.
--Lee [not sure comment 'took' minute ago, so here goes again.]
You're right. I don't care to play the "did this happen and when" game. Suffice it to say that much of it is conjecture. As an example, science assured us that lots of processes that produced much of what we see in geology today took extended amounts of time ... until Mt. Saint Helens erupted and they got to see first hand as the process that took "millions of years" actually occurred in a decade. When physicalists admit that some of this is conjecture, taken on "faith", then I'll consider the questions.
And while I'm fascinated that you would base some of your opinion about Christianity on what you "strongly suspect" biblical writers might have thought in their day (not what they wrote or claimed, but what they might have thought), there's nothing biblical that would exclude beings on other planets. It comes from this very thought: "humans being at the center of the Creator’s world". The problem, of course, according to the Bible is self-centeredness, and the notion that human beings are at the center of the Creator's world is the height of self-centeredness. It is the reason that people complain about God. "He shouldn't treat us this way" and "If God treats us in a manner less than we deem suitable, then He's bad". Because, you see, we, not He, are the center. In biblical terms, that is the center ... of the problem. In my examinations, I've found that it is the center of every conflict with God. Welcome to the human race. You have the same issue. But, for the record, I'd like to point out that the Bible neither says nor intimates that human beings are the center of God's world. God is.
Post a Comment