Concluding Thoughts 3 Jan 2011 8:52 AM (14 years ago)
I have finally pulled together and published the Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church series Ebook. You can find it up on Scribd along with all the other series that have been published on this blog . Thanks to Doug, Dennis, Terry, Jim, Phil, Keith, Murray, and Allan for their excellent contributions to the evolution-faith dialogue in the Evangelical community.
I should apologize for more-or-less dropping out of sight half way through this series. Ironically, given the subject of the series, I was invited to join our local church board just as this series was beginning. A month later I was asked to lead our Transition Team. The duties involved in planning the transition of leadership from our pastor of 23 years (a key leader within the Evangelical wing of the Anglican community in Canada) to a dynamic new pastor from Melbourne, Australia meant that something in my schedule had to give. And blogging was it.
This isn’t my first blogging hiatus. Almost exactly 2 years ago, I posted that I was taking a break. And one of the points I made then, is even truer today:
Although the science-faith discussion will always be of great interest and of some importance to me, I can’t say that it is a huge priority in my life right now; it is probably not even the most important aspect for my current faith journey.While this statement was true 2 years ago, and is true again, for a very short, tense time this fall it became a huge personal priority as I thought my views on evolution would get me into the same hot water as Doug and Terry. Fortunately, the incident was resolved quickly and satisfactorily as the problem was primarily one of perception and misunderstanding. Today, I am excited, humbled, and feeling so fortunate to help lead a local community that is passionate about furthering God’s kingdom in a multicultural, multifaith, thoroughly secular city filled with people who desperately need to hear the gospel.
So, this hiatus is likely to be permanent. The existing content will still be available, but is unlikely to be updated. For those that want to continue to interact with me on issues of science and faith, feel free to contact me by email at steven.dale.martin at gmail dot com. (And if you haven’t done so already, please peruse / read the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution Ebook as that may contain some initial food-for-thought). However, my suggestion for those who want to continue the dialogue (if you don’t know about these resources already), is to follow either the Biologos blog Science and the Sacred or RJS’s Musings on Science and Theology. Both of these communities have great ongoing conversations. (Note: To actually view and/or participate in comments on Musings on Science and Theology, you will need to do so on Jesus Creed where each post is cross-posted).
I'll conclude with the same words that ended my 2008 sign-off:
In conclusion, I’d like to say that I believe the Christian story as revealed in God’s creation (through science, including the science of biological evolution) and his word (scripture) is a coherent story, a story that is satisfying both spiritually and intellectually. It is a story worth repeating, but more importantly, a story to live by.
Teaching a Science and Faith Course in an Evangelical Mainline Church: Lessons Learned 12 Apr 2010 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Allan Harvey and is the tenth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Allan is a Ph.D. chemical engineer who works at a US government science lab in Colorado. He is on the Board of the Rocky Mountain local section of the American Scientific Affiliation. Allan is an Elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), has written several essays on the Science / Faith Dialogue, and has made available online materials based on a class he taught at his church on Science and Nature in Christian Perspective.
This was the setting for a 7-week Adult Education class I taught in 2007 on “Science and Nature in Christian Perspective.” 20 to 25 participants attended the sessions, which is pretty typical for these offerings at my church. I had hoped to attract parents of high schoolers, college students, and lay leaders in youth ministries, but for the most part these were absent (this demographic does not tend to come to other classes, either).
Ten Lessons Learned from Teaching the Course
Following, in no particular order, are ten “lessons learned” and words of advice for those who might teach a similar class.
1) Pre-existing credibility helps. It helped that I had recently served a term as an Elder and otherwise had established that my orthodoxy and stature to teach was not in doubt. If this had been 10 years earlier, when I was just some unknown scientist fairly new to the church, it would have been easier for people to dismiss what I had to say. If you already have some stature in your church, you are ahead of the game. If not, you might first build that by serving the local church (which one should do anyway) in less controversial ways.
2) Don’t dive into the deep end. It was week 6 before I talked extensively about evolution. Discussions on difficult and controversial issues go better once one has laid a good foundation for thinking about them. I felt it was important to first talk about healthy ways of reading the Bible and what sort of questions we should and should not ask Scripture, and also about how we should view God’s action in and through nature. If you can make the case that Genesis shouldn’t be read as a science textbook, and that natural processes should not be seen as competing explanations in opposition to God, much of the basis for Christian anti-evolutionism is disarmed before you even bring up “the E-word”.
3) Establish common ground. It helped to begin the class with some things everybody could agree on, like God as author of nature and of scripture. And ground rules like the need to avoid false dichotomies and to be charitable when evaluating other positions.
4) A few points, clearly made. I tried to cover too much ground in my first session; Barbour's four ways of relating science and faith, nuances of the “two books” metaphor and a few other things. There wasn't time for all of it, and it detracted from the things I really needed to get across. In subsequent weeks, I tried to limit the scope a little more and focus on fewer key points.
5) Don't be "one-sided". I think it is important not to be just the guy pointing out how some things within the church (like "creationism") are wrong, but also to make clear your opposition to those attacking the faith from outside (like Richard Dawkins) who use science as a weapon.
6) Stick mostly to what you know. One Sunday I ventured into something I did not know enough about. I talked about the eye as something that didn't seem well "designed," and was corrected by a retired ophthalmologist. Whether his explanation was right or not, I shouldn't have tried to talk about something with which I wasn't familiar.
7) Be open to learning from people in the class. That should apply to any teaching. One man in the class came up with the metaphor "a tool that God uses" for natural processes, which I thought was so good that I used it in the rest of the class and in my write-up.
8) You never know what might cause trouble. I had a lot of trepidation prior to the week I focused on evolution, but the session was not contentious at all. However, the week I talked about the stewardship of God's creation, I was surprised that a few people were quite hostile -- I knew our church had some Rush Limbaugh disciples but I didn't expect to be a target.
9) Support helps. I am grateful for the prayer and encouragement provided by my wife and some other people with whom I was in fellowship. Leading a session on a controversial topic like this can be lonely and intimidating (especially for an introvert like me), and that support was essential.
10) Don’t assume enemies. Before the class started, I was warned by an Associate Pastor that a member I didn’t know personally (but whom I knew was very interested in apologetics and involved with Reasons to Believe) had expressed concern about what I would be teaching. I was afraid I was going to have hostile opposition. But we exchanged email and eventually spoke in person, and he ended up making constructive contributions in class. Today I consider this man a friend, even if we still see some things differently.
Postscript
Writing this made me reflect on whether my class was a “success,” and I realize I have no clue. If nothing else, it helped clarify my own thoughts, and at least a few people have found the material I put on the web useful. My church has never been a hotbed of “creationist” activity, but there are a number of ID fans and “Truth Project” advocates and that is still the case. I think at least a few people had their eyes opened to a healthier perspective on science/faith issues, and more people at church are aware that I can be a resource when such issues come up. But maybe I shouldn’t worry about trying to measure the “fruit” and just be faithful to what I think God calls me to do.
Origins and the Pastoral Task: The Priority of Love over Knowledge 5 Apr 2010 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Murray Hogg and is the ninth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Murray is the pastor of Camberwell East Baptist Church in Melbourne, Australia, and is the Chair of the Victorian chapter of ISCAST
For some, the question of origins is simple. For Evangelical Christians it’s complex. Evangelicals believe that the origin and development of the universe, including life on earth, is the result of the purposeful act of a benevolent Creator. They also take seriously the Biblical teaching on creation in Genesis and elsewhere. This gives Evangelicals more options on origins than others. It also means more issues to consider in evaluating those options. Evangelicals want to ask questions which others might regard as settled, or even entirely irrelevant. Questions relating to such diverse topics as philosophy of science, theological method, and ethics, to name but a few. Hence the complexity.
Complexity, however, can trouble Evangelicals. It conflicts with their sense that the Christian message is simple: so simple, in fact, that any person might understand it on a straight forward reading of the Bible. So the complexity involved in efforts to reconcile evolution and Christian faith tends to rub against the Evangelical grain. Yet this commitment to a simple Gospel message also means that Evangelicals reject any suggestion that one’s views of origins can ever be fundamental to salvation (see, for example, these remarks by Ken Ham). For Evangelicals the origins issue isn’t so much a question of science versus scripture as one of simplicity versus complexity.
One way of resolving this complexity is to dismiss evolutionary science. This is a popular approach amongst many Evangelicals. But others—particularly those working in the sciences—find this option entirely unacceptable. They accept evolution on scientific grounds and seek to make sense of it in a way faithful to their Evangelical Christian commitments. Despite different responses to evolution, however, there is a shared desire to maintain a critical principle well expressed in Martin Luther’s famous remark: “It is neither right, nor safe, to go against conscience.” Evangelicals disagree so strongly on origins precisely because personal conscience before God is a matter of utmost importance. To compromise on matters of conscience is neither right nor safe.
The Pastoral Task: A Principle from St. Paul
In the face of such conflicts, what role is the Christian pastor to play? How does the pastor responsibly address a topic where Evangelicals take so many different positions as a matter of conscience? Dogmatic pronouncements and disciplinary action can intimidate people to go against conscience, but that’s hardly to be encouraged. On the other hand, teaching the correct view of origins is difficult given that the correct view of origins is precisely the point at issue. So what’s a Christian pastor to do?
Well, I think that Paul’s discussion in First Corinthians gives us solid Biblical ground on which to stand. The Corinthians had written to Paul (7:1) for a definitive word on the divisive issue of meat sacrificed to idols (8:1). But Paul seems to sidestep that question completely. “We know that an idol is nothing,” he writes in 1 Cor. 8:4, “but there is not in everyone that knowledge” (7). Fair enough. Not everybody knows the truth about idols. But if we thought that some solid Biblical teaching on idolatry is in order, Paul surprises us by offering nothing of the sort. Instead of educating the ignorant, Paul directs his remarks to the knowledgeable and he urges them to show restraint despite their knowledge; “if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (13). Paul isn’t concerned with how much we know. It’s the impact of our behaviour on others which he thinks matters.
The Human Condition and Theological Disagreement
Underlying Paul’s discussion is the recognition of a critically important truth (the “T” word: Evangelicals take note!): the human condition, even amongst those who know Christ and his saving grace, is one of ignorance and error—“now we see in a mirror, dimly...now I know in part” (1 Cor 13:12). Indeed, 1 Corinthians is pervaded with the idea that love, not knowledge, is the greater virtue; “we all have knowledge, knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (8:1) … “because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (8:11) … “though I…understand all mysteries and all knowledge...but have not love, I am nothing” (13:2) … “whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away” (13:8). And I might only add that Jesus himself criticised his opponents on pretty much the same point (cf. Jn. 5:39-40; Mat. 23:2, 23).
Now, lest people misunderstand me, I want to make very clear that I am not dismissing matters of truth as unimportant. But, when it comes to the origins issue, can we honestly pretend that there’s any broad agreement as to what the truth actually is? Surely the Christian pastor ought to acknowledge that this is a matter upon which Evangelicals can and do hold widely divergent views? And it’s an abuse, not a fulfilment, of the pastoral calling to behave as if it were otherwise. Here the truth is “we don’t know all the answers”—even if, perhaps, we think we should.
There is a great irony lurking here. Sometimes we become so embroiled in arguments about creation that we overlook a great theological truth that is central to any view of origins: we humans are creatures and as such limited by finitude. The implication? We all have blind spots in our thinking and can therefore never assume the mantle of judgement over others (see Romans 14:1-13). We need, in any case, to avoid falling into a kind of intellectual “salvation by works” where scientific, theological, or even biblical truth become the basis of our standing in Christ. Once we go down that path then we become, as it were, “debtors to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:3) who are allowed no errors at all. Better we avail ourselves of Christ’s grace which is sufficient for all things, errors of belief included.
Conclusion
Such are only a few of the critical pastoral considerations which are often overlooked in the origins debate. There is no shortage of horror stories concerning Christians whose views on origins have made them the target of attack by fellow believers—even to the extent that some have walked away from the church or lost their faith altogether. The clear lesson is that our response to a person’s views on origins can affect their relationship with Christ far more than any error in their theory of origins ever could.
So, regardless of what you think you know about the subject of origins, please try to keep in mind Paul’s rhetorical question: “because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (8:11) Remember that it’s the stronger believer, the one who claims to have knowledge, who should give way to the weaker. Our failure to do so—regardless of where we stand on the origins issue—can have frightful consequences. There are all sorts of issues involved in the origins debate, but we should never allow our views to destroy the faith of others. When we do so, our lack of pastoral concern doesn’t commend us to God, but rather brings us under the judgment of the greatest pastor of all (Mk. 9:42).
Using the "Test of Faith Course" to Explore the Compatibility Between Science and Faith 29 Mar 2010 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Keith Suckling and is the eighth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Keith trained as an organic chemist and has published numerous scientific papers. He worked in biochemistry and pharmacology in universities, and for nearly 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry where he led research into drugs to treat heart disease, two of which are now in late stage clinical trials. He is also an ordained Anglican minister and a member of the Society of Ordained Scientists.
I am a minister in a church in the UK. Like most of Western Europe, ours is a predominantly secular society. Whereas the relationship between science and faith can be a hotly debated topic, one must often first address the question “Is faith and religion even relevant anymore?” As both a Christian minister and a scientist, I strongly support not only the relevance of the Christian faith, but the compatibility between science and this faith. The Test of Faith course offers a great opportunity to promote this perspective and I’ve had the opportunity to lead this course twice in my Church.Digswell Village Church: Background
Digswell Village is a small community about 27 miles north of London, England. The village itself is very old, but most of the housing was built in phases since the 1930s and so the overall development has followed a timescale similar to much of North America.
Digswell Village Church, where I am the Church of England minister, is a little unusual in that we are an ecumenical partnership, primarily between the Methodist church and the Church of England, but we also have members with Baptist, Lutheran and other church backgrounds. I mention this at the start because I think it is particularly important in determining how we approach complex issues in the church, of which the relationship between science and religion is just one. The partnership approach means that we have to take a broad view and look for strong common themes that will, as St Paul says, build up the Church. In other words we have to identify what are the primary issues in which clarity is required and those which may have their importance but are not essential, perhaps coming from one or other of the traditions represented. (In fact, I think there are very few primary issues).
The Test of Faith Course
Test of Faith is a course developed by the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University. It discusses a range of important questions in science and religion and consists of a DVD documentary presentation with supporting background information and workbooks. Evolution, human genetics and environmental issues are covered in the second of the three presentations. The first deals with cosmology and origins while the third delves into recent aspects of neuroscience so as to raise questions of the origin of individual personal identity and many related themes. The programmes are illustrated with many beautiful and meaningful images which link the contributions from scientists who are Christians, and from Christian theologians who are also scientifically qualified. A good sense of what is provided can be gained from the website.
The course promotes the view that science and religion are compatible. It does specifically acknowledge other points of view, and many of these are outlined sensitively in the supporting booklets, but the basic position remains clear and is one that as a scientist and a priest I support strongly. I think it is interesting to note that only about a third of the second unit covers issues arising directly from the interpretation of Genesis. Whilst this is a make or break issue for many, especially in evangelical circles in North America, in the UK and Western Europe the wider question of justifying a religious worldview and pointing out the limitations of science require a much wider engagement. This is about as far as I think I can get when I do presentations in schools to 16 to 18 year olds. If the Christian faith can be shown to be intellectually respectable and appreciative of science the door is open for a fuller exploration.
Teaching the Test of Faith Course at Digswell: Personal Experience
We have now run two Test of Faith courses in Digswell and a third is being planned for April/May. We were delighted that over half those attending the second course came from outside our local church community. People are interested, but challenged by the topics in the course. Will it strengthen my faith? Will it challenge it? Will it be too complicated for me to understand? These are just some of the thoughts that arise at the start of the course.
Some group building is needed at the start so that participants are comfortable in sharing their views. We had one person leave because he did not have a deep enough scientific background, but everyone else, whatever their level of scientific experience was able to find their way through. One of the most common reactions was how beautiful the science itself is, and most people had no difficulty in connecting that to God in creation, expressed for example in Psalm 19. Many were struck by how strongly people who are clearly distinguished scientists can hold a conventional faith. I know from experience that it can be very challenging in the scientific community to be seen as religious. It can feel as if one’s scientific integrity is questionable. Perhaps scientists who are Christians have kept their heads down too much, although this may be changing. I believe that Test of Faith will help.
There are church communities in England where evolution would be a contentious topic, but this was not really the case for any of our participants, so this did not dominate discussion. There was intellectual understanding of the arguments, but some were challenged by the realisation that an evolutionary world view requires a non-literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden. Perhaps they were sad to see that there may have been no golden age in the development of life on earth. One important question which can arise in any of the sessions is that of understanding why suffering exists. This year it was particularly emphasised by the earthquake in Haiti, which occurred around the same time as the course. Many found John Polkinghorne’s ideas helpful here (See for eg. his answer to the question Was the Tsunami and act of God? and these reflections on divine action and evil).
Conclusion
From a position of caution and possibly confusion at the start, the participants ended the course stimulated and much more confident in dealing with and attempting to integrate the insights of science into their Christian worldview. This, I think, is probably the most important thing the course can do. There are no final and complete answers to many of the questions the course raises, and this will also be true of the new problems that are bound to arise. But if we can approach scripture and nature as two aspects of God’s revelation, as the scientists and theologians in Test of Faith clearly do, we will be more integrated in our worship and prayer and in our lives as a whole.
Encouraging Critical Thinking in Evangelical Churches: The Scientist as a Bible Teacher 22 Mar 2010 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Philip Wala and is the seventh installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Phil attended Assemblies of God churches for nearly 54 years, serving as elder, deacon, and Sunday School teacher for teens and adults. He earned his Ph.D. in electrical engineering as a National Science Foundation Fellow at Stanford University, holds 17 U.S. patents, and presently works as a research engineer for ADC Telecommunications. He and his wife (a licensed Christian therapist, and former Assemblies of God licensed minister) recently moved to the suburban Minneapolis area, where they now attend a “Spirit-filled” Lutheran church. He is the author of the blog Faith for Thinkers.
The Danger of Unchallenged BeliefsAs a third-generation evangelical, I treasure the faith heritage passed on to me, and the profound influence many wonderful pastors, teachers, and fellow believers have had on my spiritual growth. I am also intimately aware of the frustration of being a scientist in a subculture that treats serious scientific inquiry with suspicion.
This suspicion of science is only one aspect of an evangelical mindset that seems threatened by divergent opinion and comforted by conformity. There is a supposedly “evangelical Christian position” on political affiliation, gun control, taxes, global warming and, of course, evolution. And many evangelicals are incredulous that any sincere believer would ever think, act, or vote any other way.
Pressure to conform can be especially strong for evangelicals that recognize the Holy Spirit as an ever-present guide and illuminator of truth. After all, if everyone can hear from God, disagreement must imply that somebody isn’t listening properly. Those with strong opinions will naturally assume the other party is mistaken, and seek confirmation of their already arrived-upon conclusions by saturating themselves with like-minded teaching. And for those whose personal convictions aren’t as strong, an assumption that everyone else must have heard from God relieves them of the responsibility to independently think through these issues on their own.
The danger in this mindset is the ease with which a debatable opinion or interpretation of scripture can be elevated to the status of unquestioned doctrine, an error Jesus warned against (Matt 15:9). To avoid this trap, the evangelical church needs to foster an atmosphere of dialogue in which new information is welcomed, questions are allowed, and critical thinking is embraced. Such an atmosphere allows the opportunity for believers to continually subject their own beliefs to reexamination and challenge, so that legitimate doctrines can be strengthened, ambiguous ones debated, and erroneous ones corrected.
Teaching Evangelicals to Think Critically
The techniques of acquiring new information, testing hypotheses, challenging the results, and subjecting conclusions to peer review, are used by scientists to correct and advance our knowledge of the physical world. Similar techniques can be used to foster spiritual growth in the local church.
As a scientist who has had frequent opportunities to teach in a church setting, I enjoy finding opportunities to challenge my students to rethink positions they assumed were unquestionable. Of course, this teaching style must be approached with an abundance of patience and wisdom, especially when the subject is the science and theology of creation. Challenging dearly held beliefs must take place in measured steps, in keeping with the level of established trust.
Step 1: Inform
For those unaccustomed to hearing divergent viewpoints discussed in church, the first step is to simply provide objective information about those viewpoints. On the topic of origins, I find it helpful to use a two-dimensional model of creation viewpoints that decouples the assumed link between faith and young-earth creationism, and identifies respected evangelicals who hold widely divergent opinions on science. By presenting such information in a non-confrontational manner, the student is given permission to admit the potential ambiguity of issues they previously assumed were unquestionable.
It is also beneficial to bring up examples of recent scientific discoveries that they usually would not hear discussed in church. Many evangelicals blindly base their opposition to evolution on arguments from the 1960s that are no longer valid. By openly discussing recent observations of the Hubble telescope, or the sequencing of the human genome, the scientist/bible teacher can demonstrate that subjecting ones beliefs to the light of new information doesn’t have to be threatening, but can, in fact, be a very Godly pursuit.
Step 2: Challenge
The next step in the process involves a more direct challenge: leading students into states of “cognitive dissonance”, in which they are forced to deal with logical inconsistencies in their belief system. Comparing the cooperative lifestyle of the early church (Acts 4:32-35) to communism, or asking if God’s gift to humanity of free will makes him “pro-choice”, always leads to double-takes and dropped jaws. The goal here is not to change beliefs, but to help people realize that there may be subtle ambiguities in positions they assumed were black and white.
When the subject is faith and science, an appeal to historical precedent can be used to great advantage. Without any direct reference to the issue at hand, but using many of the common arguments used in the creation/evolution debate, I lay out my case, appealing to the inerrancy of scripture, the teachings of the church, and the scientific theories (that are, after all, just theories) that clearly contradict scripture. As expected, most evangelicals take a resolute stand on the side of the church. I then calmly add something I had “forgotten” to mention: that the year is 1615, and they have all just taken a stand against the heliocentric theories of Copernicus and Galileo.
Step 3: Confront
The third step, direct confrontation, must be handled with utmost sensitivity, and generally in a one-on-one setting with someone with whom you have developed a relationship of mutual trust. I was fortunate to have such a relationship with my pastor, so that when the church decided (in spite of my strong objections) to use the “Truth Project” videos, we were able to discuss my areas of disagreement in an atmosphere of respectful and mutually beneficial dialogue.
Once again, the motive of confrontation should not be to prove who is right. I have resorted to confrontation primarily to address specific behavior, statements, or teachings that, in my estimation, push away, or shut down healthy dialogue with, people holding diverse opinions on debatable issues. Because of their potentially wide distribution, it is especially important to confront politically biased or scientifically inaccurate comments in church sponsored newsletters or e-mails. Online blogs are another venue in which the scientist/bible teacher can offer respectful comments to help steer the conversation from pontification to dialogue (see this link for an example).
Conclusion
After 27 years in the same congregation, my wife and I recently moved to a new community where we have found a wonderfully dynamic “Spirit-filled” Lutheran church that is true to the doctrines and worship style I cherish, but at the same time refreshingly more tolerant of ambiguity and dialogue on the non-essentials.
The church I left behind is, I hope, better for having had a scientist/bible teacher in its congregation. I am blessed by the ongoing dialogue I have with the pastor; I am saddened by another church leader who broke off contact with me and encouraged others to do the same, so as to be protected from my supposedly heretical views; and I am touched by memories of a missions trip to Ukraine in which an eager young bible school student told me, in all seriousness, “I am so glad to learn that scientists aren’t evil!”
But for the most part, I am encouraged by the one reaction I heard over and over again in reaction to my teaching: “Thanks. You’ve made me think.”
To which I reply, “Mission accomplished.”
Growing up Science-Literate in the Japanese Church and encountering YEC in the American Church: A Paleontologist’s Personal Perspective. 15 Mar 2010 3:28 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest-post by Jim Kidder and is the sixth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Jim is a librarian, palaeoanthropologist, and evolutionary biologist with an all-consuming interest in apologetics and controversies in science and religion. He publishes the weblog Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist.
We attended church at the local university church, which was not the liveliest house of worship. The ceiling was a good seventy feet overhead to make room for the gigantic pipe organ in the front. Voices were, subsequently, quite amplified and the general tone was quite solemn. This was probably a contributing factor in the lack of spiritual growth during my preteens.
Early Scientific Education
My school experience at the American School in Japan (ASIJ) based in Tokyo was comparable to that of a very good college prep school, with a considerable number of offerings in literature, history and science. I took biology in the ninth grade from a man very passionate about science and I came to love it as well. Along with a generous amount of comparative anatomy, there was a smattering of evolution, taking the form of systematics rather than actual instruction in the basic tenets of the theory, itself. Eldredge and Gould had produced their seminal works on punctuated equilibrium a few years before so the science world was still abuzz with the possibility that evolution as espoused by George Gaylord Simpson and Sewall Wright, names I did not know at the time but later became quite familiar with, was not the be all and end all that it appeared to be. No, Punk-eek was in. Notably lacking in my science education and in the educational climate of the high school was recent earth creationism. I simply never encountered it. Not from any of the faculty nor from my peers. There simply was no controversy.
Personal Spiritual Growth
As my walk with Christ became more serious, I left the campus church and began to go to a Tokyo branch of the Union Theological Seminary (TUTS). It became clear, after a few more years of high school, however, that this church had a somewhat liberal bent and that elements of New Age thought were quite prevalent. When one is in high school, one does not initially challenge these things and I was no exception. Especially since TUTS was where most of the attractive girls went. Nevertheless, challenge them I did.
I eventually left this church as well and began to attend house churches, based all over the city that ranged from Pentecostal to Lutheran to your good old fashioned non-denominational service. What is remarkable about these gatherings in hind sight is how little discussion there was on science. The focus was on the Lordship of Christ and even when apologetics was studied, it was only in the context of defending one’s faith in the larger sense. Science simply never entered the picture, almost as if it were a taboo subject. It may very well have been but I was none the wiser.
My senior year was spent with my academic interests neatly split between history and palaeontology but, at this stage, history won out and that is what I decided to pursue as an undergraduate once I left the confines of ASIJ. One of the papers I wrote in my senior year of high school, however, dealt heavily with paleontological material and early hominids. Although the human palaeontology bug did not bite me then, delving into that literature for the first time was exhilarating—especially since there was nobody to tell me that I shouldn’t. Even my friends at school who knew of my interests and were Christians did not seem to have any qualms about it. I am convinced that learning about this evidence at a comparatively early age deeply affected my ability to accept it in light of my Christianity.
Moving to America and Encountering YEC Ideas
I graduated from high school in 1980 and, in one of the more traumatic moments in my life, moved from the safe confines of Tokyo, Japan to the unknown wilderness that was the United States of America. Fortunately, I made friends with a growing group of Christians on campus and this mitigated the jarring experience somewhat. Two of these new friends invited me to go to church with them in the nearby town of Knoxville. A few weeks later, I walked into the sanctuary and peered at a bulletin board, on which local job adverts and news items were posted. One in particular caught my eye. It was for the East Tennessee Creation Science Association and they were advertising a meeting at a local church. The bulk of the flyer was, however, composed of several quotes from people that I have since become familiar with—Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Gary Bauer, about how bad the fossil record was, how good the evidence was for the world-wide flood of Noah, how the earth was only a few thousand years old and how evil evolution was.
I just stared…dumbfounded.
In my years of growing into my Christian faith in Japan, I had never encountered this mindset. I remember thinking “people really believe this??”
It had never occurred to me that what I came to know as the primeval history of Genesis was to be taken literally. I soon found that a great many people, including some of my newfound Christian friends, did read Genesis 1 as history and believed that God created the world in 7 literal 24-hour days. This began a lifelong interest in the different approaches to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis, the geological record, and evolution.
Reflecting on the Absence of YEC ideas in the Japanese Christian Community
In hindsight, I still find it puzzling that a movement that is so prevalent in evangelical circles in the United States, and has had such a profound political impact here, was virtually irrelevant in the Japanese Christian church. That Japan is a Christian mission field is probably a factor here. While Japan has a vast history of both Buddhist and Shinto thought, Christianity was a comparative newcomer to the stage and was not accepted in any way until after the early 1900s. Up until that point, Christians had been persecuted in the best Roman fashion. Nowadays the vast majority of Japanese are areligious. Consequently, there is so much focus on evangelizing Japanese with the basic sinner’s prayer that there is little time for other things. Even among the Christian foreign community, however, there is little emphasis on science and how it should be viewed. I have recently become aware that Creation Ministries International has a chapter in Japan but I never heard about it while I was there.
Today, I view myself as an evolutionary creationist (EC) / theistic evolutionist (TE). My experiences in Japan are largely responsible for this. To be sure, as with most people that take an EC perspective, I have many unanswered questions about the historicity of Adam, the place of the “pre-Adamites,” and how the fall can be reconciled with the scientific data. I trust that those questions will be answered in due time.
Sadly, I have had very little experience with Christians who grew up in other countries where these questions were asked. I know that, recently, there have been many groups that are “evangelizing” the Old World (Ken Ham just recently went to Japan) and that, as in the United States, the YEC perspective is more prevalent than it was even twenty years ago. I would love to hear some perspectives of those who grew up as Christians in other nations and how their churches addressed these origins questions. Was my experience in Japan unique?
Being an Evolutionary Creationist in a Confessionally Reformed Church: Part 2 - Reflections and Becoming an Agent for Change 10 Mar 2010 2:55 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest-post by Terry Gray and is the fifth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Terry is the webmaster for the ASA and has written several helpful articles on the creation / evolution dialogue including Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No! A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity.
As I recounted in part 1 of this article, I was put on trial by the OPC church in the mid-1990’s for my Evolutionary Creationist (EC) views. This resulted in my suspension from the office of church elder, and I was reinstated only after admitting that I did not know how to reconcile human evolution with the uniqueness of Adam. This process did not lead to any resentment on my part. In fact, I was fully sympathetic and supportive with the disciplinary process.
Why I Support the Process that led to my Trial and Censure
In my ecclesiology the church has the right and responsibility to ensure that its leaders adhere to the church’s confessions. Also, church authority does not simply reside in the local church. Higher assemblies such as presbyteries, classes, synods, and General Assemblies have the right and responsibility to oversee decisions of churches and lower assemblies. As well, allegedly errant decisions made in lower assemblies may be appealed to higher assemblies. I believe that the church/denomination isn’t just a human institution. No doubt, it reflects the fallen, human condition, and hence is splintered into denominations, carries errant beliefs, has sinners among its membership, etc. However, none of this negates the fact that it is a divine institution.
The church faces new challenges and ideas in almost every generation. Part of what happens in the process of facing these new ideas is that the church wrestles with its own confession. This I believe is a good thing. We do not stand alone in our understanding of scripture. Confessions allow the church of past ages to speak. This is one of the ways to protect ourselves and our churches from being blown here and there by every wind of doctrine. The church represents a broad body of believers in which to test new ideas. There is an inherent conservatism to this process, however, and we must be patient with our fellow believers in working through these questions.
I hope that expressing my beliefs about the church’s role in articulating truth and enforcing church discipline explains some things that many people find difficult to understand about my experience. It explains why I would suffer through a heresy trial in the first place. Second, it explains why I think that the church should judge me rather than vice versa. And third, it explains why I’m willing to submit to decisions of the church with respect to my level of involvement in the church.
Personal Implications of the Trial
In general, I was pleased to see church discipline in action. I was happy with the treatment I received in the process. I was treated respectfully and my ideas and arguments were taken seriously. In the end my position was rejected, but hardly any of the “attacks” were personal. It turned out that while no one actually agreed with me, there were those who defended me and thought that my position should be allowed.
There was some pain in our local church. Two of my fellow elders were committed young earth creationists and before this time had been personal and family friends. During my trial they had difficulty keeping the disagreement from becoming personal. This was painful for me and for my wife and young children (at the time ages 12, 10, 7, 3, and 1). My two three-year terms as elder ran out at the end of 1992 and I was never re-elected. I did, however, continue to serve in various other leadership roles (pastoral search, new building committee, evangelism training, etc).
We moved from Michigan to Colorado about a year after the process was completed, so I never got to see the long term consequences of my views for involvement in the local church.
B) Becoming an Agent for Change in a Confessional Church
One advantage of being part of a confessional church is that there are specific processes for testing new ideas. On many issues there is also some denominational history (e.g. official church study reports, or the writings of church pastors, theologians, and other denominational leaders). So in the science / faith dialogue those of us that are conversant with science have mechanisms to change popular erroneous ideas about science which are neither scripturally nor confessionally warranted. Thus I am now taking the opportunity, with the support of my local elder board, to initiate a process to change what I believe to be an erroneous scientific conclusion contained in my Church’s position on Creation and Science.
Joining the Christian Reformed Church
We eventually joined the CRCNA church in Fort Collins, Colorado, and I became active in the life and ministry of that local church in the elder board, small group ministry, adult teaching and worship. Our switch to the CRCNA had little to do with my “problems” in the OPC, but rather figuring out which of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in Fort Collins was the best fit for our family. The CRCNA is somewhat broader theologically than the OPC and PCA (for example, the denomination allows women pastors, elders, and deacons); however it remains evangelical and confessionally rooted.
Although in our particular local church faith/science issues are largely non-controversial, I did not seek to address these issues right away. I spent a few years teaching some courses on theology and the Bible and being involved in various ministries including church leadership. These activities allowed me to build credibility and trust within the local church community. Establishing yourself as a committed church member and a faithful lay Bible teacher and theologian is an important prerequisite to addressing more controversial topics (after all, the Christian faith and Christian discipleship is much broader than the faith/science debate). Only then did I take up the faith/science topic in our adult discipleship ministry. I have now taught a 15 week course covering many aspects of the faith/science area, ranging from origins to creation care to bioethics. Even establishing specific credibility in the faith/science area through that class was an important step in being able to proceed with the potentially more controversial proposal outlined next.
Initiating the Process to Change CRCNA Statements against Animal Ancestry of Humans
As a denomination the CRCNA issued a Creation and Science report in 1991 in the aftermath of controversies involving the teachings of some science professors at Calvin College. In general, this report, while cautious about the influence of secularism and atheism in modern science, was pro-science, recognizing the possibility of an old earth and universe and an evolutionary history for life on earth. Declarations B & C emphasize the freedom of exegesis and the freedom of science, respectively, although within the bounds of the teaching of Scripture and the confessions. These bounds were most clearly expressed in the emphasis on the “event character” (i.e. the historicity) of Adam and the Fall. Declaration F of this report (recommended by a minority of the study committee and adopted by Synod) made strong statements against animal ancestry of humans with some provisos allowing for further study.
At my request our elder board has requested that the Synod rescind Declaration F from the 1991 report. This request is currently making its way through the denominational procedures and may be taken up in the 2010 Synod. We think that Declaration F expresses a discordant note from the rest of the report, which generally is quite pro-science. It also turns out that Declaration F is lifted up as a significant part of the view of the CRCNA on the topic of Creation and Science in some denominational publications. We think this is most unfortunate. We think that the rest of the report adequately expresses a Biblical and confessional perspective on the issues involved without virtually forbidding someone from holding a view that there is some kind of evolutionary relationship between human beings and other living creatures (which is what Declaration F currently does).
An Opportunity to Work Together as the Body of Christ
While re-opening this discussion may be uncomfortable and controversial, it allows us to again ask the relevant Biblical and theological questions in community. In my opinion there are not any confessional issues at stake here. Questions about the historicity of Adam and the Fall would bring up confession issues, but our request is somewhat limited and does not ask the church to address those questions. We believe that the church mistakenly adopted a Declaration on this subject that was narrower than Scripture or the confessions and we are asking the church to correct that mistake.
What the outcome will be remains to be seen, but this current situation illustrates ways in which ECs can work within the church to effect change. This involves studying together, discussing together, and sometimes participating in formal decision-making processes where denominational positions are forged. In short, it is an opportunity to work together as the Body of Christ.
Being an Evolutionary Creationist in a Confessionally Reformed Church: Part 1 8 Mar 2010 12:30 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest-post by Terry Gray and is the fourth installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Terry is the webmaster for the ASA and has written several helpful articles on the creation / evolution dialogue including Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No! A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity.
Evangelicalism is a big tent. It covers many denominations and traditions, including the more conservative end of most mainline denominations. One component of Evangelicalism is the confessional tradition, where the teachings of a church are reflected in a creed or confession. Examples include Presbyterian and Reformed churches (Westminster Standards, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort), Lutheran churches (Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord), and Anglican/Episcopal churches (Thirty-Nine Articles).
Historically these confessional traditions take their confessions very seriously. They believe that the confessions are accurate summaries of the teaching of Scripture. They are not just historically relative documents that “guide” the church, but represent the living confession of the church and are believed to be time-tested guides to the church’s teaching and ministry. As time-tested guides, these confessions stand as “tests of orthodoxy” for pastors, elders, deacons, and other church leaders.
This is different than for many evangelical churches, which sometimes claim to have “no creed but Christ” or to say that the Bible is their creed. In many evangelical churches and denominations there may be a statement of faith but it will often focus on the basic elements of the Christian faith.
The stories I recount are almost all in the context of Reformed confessional churches or denominations and are from the perspective of one who is fully supportive of the confessional viewpoint.
My Personal Background in the Science / Faith Dialogue within the Reformed Confessional Tradition
I grew up in the mainline Presbyterian denomination, but moved toward conservative Reformed denominations in my adult years. This has meant membership and/or involvement in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA). I was a also a faculty member at Calvin College, owned and operated by the CRCNA, from 1986-1997. For most of my life I have been at ease with evolution as an evangelical Christian. In fact I wrote a “tract” in 7th grade for my fellow public school students explaining how to reconcile the Biblical account of Adam and Eve with modern evolutionary biology.
While doing my undergraduate studies at Purdue University, I attended an RPCNA church whose “Testimony”, a contemporary commentary on the Westminster Confession, is strongly anti-evolutionary. The pastor at this church was staunchly YEC, and, knowing that I was studying biology, tried to convince me of the young earth position. Although I neither became a member at this church, nor active in church leadership, I appreciated the preaching, teaching, and fellowship. The challenge to thinking Christianly about my specific discipline was beneficial even though the pastor and I disagreed on some of the particulars.
In graduate school in the 1980’s at the University of Oregon and during my years at Calvin College I was a member, and eventually an elder, in the OPC. I was comfortable there with my old earth views and my evolutionary science. After all, the OPC had been the home of Davis Young (Christianity and the Age of the Earth) and Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) and was the spiritual heir of B.B. Warfield who was able to see his way to reconcile evolutionary biology with the theology of the Westminster Standards. Meredith G. Kline was an Old Testament Biblical scholar in the OPC who advocated a more literary view of Genesis 1 and in the process removed some of the Biblical foundation for the young earth position. I also knew of one prominent pastor and denominational leader who would carry a small fossil in his pocket and ask prospective pastors during the theology examination for ordination how they explained such things, pressing for an old earth view of creation if they responded with a young earth creationist perspective.
Ecclesiastical Charges Resulting from my Evolutionary Creationist Views
But the harmony between my position in the OPC and my views on science and faith would not last. In 1992, while serving as an elder in the church, my EC views were challenged. That spring I wrote a review of Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial for the Banner, the denominational magazine of the CRCNA. In this article I applauded Johnson’s critique of atheistic naturalism but at the same time critiqued his critique of biological evolution. As an aside, I suggested that the arguments for evolution might extend to human beings. A letter from the Presbytery of Northern California soon followed urging the Presbytery of the Midwest (our church was in Grand Rapids, Michigan) to investigate my views. This began a four year long process involving our local church elders, pastors and elders from the Presbytery of the Midwest, and eventually, pastors and elders from the whole denomination. Many of the details of this process are recounted on the web.
It should be noted that my views would not have been scrutinized if I were not an officer in the church (i.e. had I been “just” as member). Like all elders in the OPC I had expressed adherence to the Westminster Standards – and it was charged that my views could not be reconciled with these standards. I was accused “of stating that Adam had primate ancestors–contrary to the Word of God…and the doctrinal standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” and “with regard to the process and method by which God created Adam, Dr. Gray subordinates Scripture to alleged empirical evidence.”
The Trial, My Censure, and Recantation
The process ended up being fairly complicated. Because I was an elder and not a pastor, the “court of original jurisdiction” was the local elder board. A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether or not the charges warranted a trial. Our local church elders determined that a trial was not warranted. However, this was appealed to the Presbytery and they overruled that decision and a trial was conducted. In the meantime, the membership of the elder board had changed, so that at the trial, I was found guilty of the first charge (stating that Adam had primate ancestors)—I admitted stating so, but denied that it was contrary to the Confessions or to the Word of God. (I was found not guilty of the second charge concerning “subordinating Scripture to alleged empirical evidence.”) I appealed the guilty verdict to Presbytery, lost there, then appealed to General Assembly and lost there as well.
The censure was to suspend me indefinitely from the office of ruling elder. I remained in that state until January 1998 when I was restored after recanting of my views. My recantation was not a denial of primate ancestry, but rather an admission that I did not know how to hold my views about human evolution together with the uniqueness of Adam as taught in the Confessions and in Scripture. This small step back from my previous assertion was satisfactory to the church elders. I did not violate my conscience in this and continue to this day to have no firm idea about how to put all the pieces together.
To Be Continued
In part two of this article to be published later this week, I will reflect back on the events of my trial. I was fully sympathetic with the process, and believe I was treated fairly. This may be surprising for others (particularly those not from a confessional church background) and probably deserves some explanation. I will also outline a proposal I recently initiated to modify one section of the CRCNA Creation and Science report that was adopted in 1991.
Promoting a Positive Relationship between an Evangelical Faith and Biological Evolution in the Local Church 1 Mar 2010 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest-post by Dennis Venema and is the third installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Dennis is the Chair of the Biology department at Trinity Western University. His article “Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human – Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes” will be published in the September 2010 edition of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, alongside his essay-length review of Stephen Meyer’s recent ID book, Signature in the Cell.
The creation / evolution topic can be very divisive within a church community. Because of this, the approach I’ve generally taken at my church is to discuss the issue only when asked, and only with those who ask. Raising this topic can be unhelpful at times, and cause problems for those not adequately prepared to deal with the implications. As Steve has ably discussed here before, the choice on whether to engage in this discussion needs to be approached carefully and with wisdom. Until recently, given that the Creation/evolution discussion was not a major focus of my local congregation, I felt no pressing need to voice my views on the matter. Rather, I discussed it privately and informally with those who expressed an interest in the subject.
A Time to Speak Up
This situation changed for me last year when my local church announced it would be running The Truth Project (hereafter “TTP”), a DVD series from Focus on the Family. TTP covers a lot of ground, but my primary concern was how the series handled evolution. TTP very clearly presents evolution as a demonic lie that is in direct conflict with the Christian perspective that humans are created in the image of God. Moreover, TTP spends a significant amount of time discussing evolution, identifying it as an example of godless philosophy in several of the videos, including the “science” lectures (where of course it is the prime focus). For those not familiar with TTP, Mike Beidler is currently blogging his way through the series.
The concern I had then (and still have now) is that presenting evolution and Creation as a dichotomous choice is both false, and potentially dangerous for believers and non-believers. I decided that it was time to address the issue at the congregational level. One email (among several) I sent to my church leadership on this issue contained the following:
I would hold that the “either evolution or God” is a false dichotomy. I would also hold that it is a dangerous one. In TTP, evolution and God’s creation are held out as mutually exclusive options: in this mindset, then, evidence for evolution becomes evidence against God. I have seen students struggle with this issue as they study biology. This is a mindset we would do well not to saddle young people with (or anyone, for that matter).Later I requested an opportunity to present an Evolutionary Creationist viewpoint on biology at the church, but that request was denied. As an alternative, a church member hosted a unofficial evening at his home where I gave this presentation. The evening was a pleasure – not because we were all in agreement (indeed, the material was very challenging for most attendees) but because of the charity that surrounded the discussion. If nothing else, the evening demonstrated that constructive dialogue within an Evangelical congregation is possible (and everyone still shakes my hand on Sunday; so, so far, so good).
Contrary to what you hear through many Christian channels, there is ample evidence for evolution, human evolution included. When students encounter this evidence with the either/or mindset, it can shipwreck their faith. When outsiders who know Biology come into the church, they write us off as ignorant and dismiss the claims of Christ along with our flawed Biology. In both cases, our poor handling of science raises unnecessary barriers to faith.
I would suggest, especially for the science section of TTP, that there be a willingness to engage a discussion in the church about the full range of Christian responses to evolution, and even explore some of the reasons why Christians in the biological sciences feel that evolution is a valid scientific theory. I’m not normally one for pushing these discussions, but we’ve never had the opposing views taught through an official venue before either.
On the down side, however, our congregation is currently running TTP again as an adult Sunday School class. C’est la vie.
A Tale of Two Congregations
In contrast to the situation at my own church, I recently received an invitation from the leadership of another local congregation to provide a presentation on evolution and Evolutionary Creationism. This congregation runs a “theology café” every so often at a local coffee shop owned by some of their members. This allows them to engage in interesting and controversial issues from a Christian perspective in a public setting.
I’ll admit that I was a little wary when first approached (wondering if perhaps they were looking for an ID/anti-evolutionary view) but those fears were quickly laid to rest. Over coffee (at the venue, of course) it became clear that what they wanted was a discussion from an evangelical perspective that was accepting of evolution. Their motivation? Many in the congregation had read Brian McClaren’s trilogy (A New Kind of Christian; The Story We Find Ourselves In; The Last Word and the Word After That). The second book in the series showcases a positive relationship between Christianity and evolution as a major plot component, and this left the congregation wanting to explore things further. I presented essentially the same material as I had to my own congregants, and the evening generated very fruitful discussions on faith, science and approaching Genesis on its own terms.
The next day I received the following feedback from the church leadership:
Dennis, Thanks so much for an excellent evening. I have heard many express real appreciation not only for the content but also for your grace and the very interesting and understandable way in which you presented it. I think this will not only open up thinking in the science realm but will help get us all excited again about the early chapters of Genesis and what God is communicating there.A Time of Transition
Dennis, I would echo those thanks. Our community is really growing in its ability to face these kinds of questions and you enriched that journey for us. Thanks for taking the time.
A belief in God as Creator is a bedrock, non-negotiable assumption of Christianity. Many believers, however, conflate this belief with a specific mechanism by which God created. Untangling those two ideas cuts to the heart of the nature of Scripture and how it should be approached. Perhaps the greatest tragedy in the evangelical church is not that we, on the whole, reject evolution: worse still, we have not prepared our congregants to deal with the exegetical and hermeneutical issues that evolution engenders, despite the many opportunities Scripture itself gives us for such preparation.
A second bedrock belief, however, is that God’s works are also a form of His revelation. Since Scripture and nature have the same Author, they cannot conflict with each other. Reading God’s words in nature clearly shows that evolution, including human evolution, was part of His creative strategy. Given the overwhelming evidence for human evolution, it is only a matter of time before the evangelical church comes around to this method of creation. The only question is how long this transition will take, and how much damage will ensue in the process.
While I don’t see this as a fast transition, I see good reasons for hope. More and more voices (e.g. Biologos) are chiming in to affirm that science and Christian faith are not at odds, and that one can rejoice in God’s Word in nature and God’s Word in Scripture without falsely pitting one against the other. Resources to address this issue at a congregational level are becoming available as well (e.g. Test of Faith). Already, there are rare evangelical congregations that affirm a positive relationship between the science of evolution and the Good News of Jesus Christ. This affirmation removes a potential stumbling block for believers, and tears down a barrier to faith for non-believers. At the end of the day, these are part and parcel of what being an Evangelical is all about.
A Quick Comment on Comments 27 Feb 2010 9:01 AM (15 years ago)
Because of the nature of the internet, blog conversations can sometimes be truly exasperating, banal, nasty, or worse. I am thankful that this type of interaction has been almost completely absent from this blog. A big thanks to all my readers, commenters, and guest contributors.
However, it seems to me that I should publish some type of guideline to refer to when a comment is inappropriate. I have now published the The Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution Commenting Guidelines and put this on the blog home page sidebar. This is draft number 1 and is subject to change – particularly if I get a good suggestion from a reader. Your feedback is welcome.
Secondly, a while ago I created a “comments feed” so that I could receive comments on the blog in my RSS reader. I never publicly announced this, but I guess some people found it. And that made me think, hmm, maybe some others would like to receive these comments in an RSS feed as well rather than constantly looking at my site to see if a new comment has arrived. So here is the RSS comment feed (also available on the sidebar under the subscribe heading).
Is there an Evangelical Church Home for the Evolutionary Creationist? 22 Feb 2010 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest-post by Douglas Hayworth and is the second installment in the series "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church". Doug grew up as an MK/PK (missionary/pastor kid) and lived in Iran as a child. He has a PhD in evolutionary biology from Washington University in St. Louis. While in St. Louis, he was part of a PCA church, where he served as missions committee chairman, deacon, and children's Sunday school teacher. He currently lives in Rockford, Illinois where he works as a protein research technical writer and content specialist for Thermo Fisher Scientific.
I think it's fair to say that evangelical churches aren't welcoming places for scientists whose areas of expertise and research have anything to do with evolution. Where there are exceptional churches, they are primarily in metropolitan areas near large universities that provide a wide diversity of intellectual expertise. Unless you're fortunate enough to live in such a place, finding a church fellowship that values and supports the whole of who you are may be extremely difficult.I know. I still haven't found a permanent church home in "Springfield", Illinois where I've lived for the past 10 years.
The Contemporary Evangelical Church: Culturally but not Intellectually Welcoming
Mind you, I have plenty of evangelical churches to choose from in Springfield (Christian, Evangelical Free, Evangelical Covenant, Assembly of God, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.). And they aren't all tightwad conservative churches, either. Some are cutting-edge, Starbucks-biscotti, black-light, fog-machine, rock-n-roll churches. Culturally relevant and progressive, to be sure...except when it comes to certain intellectual matters and the epistemological nuances that my scientific awareness requires me to take seriously.
I commend contemporary evangelical churches for their willingness to re-evaluate 20th century assumptions about what the Bible really teaches (i.e., exegesis) and how it applies to our generation (i.e., hermeneutics). Unfortunately, for the most part, they seem rather immature in their methodology. Simply put, the church's fundamental problem is its sophomoric understanding of critical realism. Somehow, all truth claims, whether scientific or scriptural, are naively understood as speaking the same language and competing for identical territory.
I am a native evangelical, and those are the types churches that I've generally sought to join. (Mainline churches have different challenges, which I'm not attempting to address here.) My church experiences in Springfield have varied in several ways, and my identity as an evolutionary creationist (EC) is only one factor that has affected the success or failure of these episodes. Yet, I've come to realize that the way in which a church reacts to my identity as an EC provides an accurate indication of how well my family will fit in overall. Indeed, a church's suspicion of my Christian devotion and essential orthodoxy based solely on my EC views is a diagnostic marker for incompatibility in other areas as well.
Becoming Unwanted: Parting Ways with My Local Evangelical Church
That’s my hypothesis: EC is a sort of litmus test for assessing an evangelical church’s theological maturity about many things.
I formulated this hypothesis as a result of my most recent church experience. A few months ago my wife and I felt compelled to leave the evangelical church that we had called home and had been actively involved in for more than a year. I wrote about this experience on my personal blog in a series called "Becoming Unwanted". In the first post I described the background and setting for the overall situation. Originally my family was optimistic about our prospects at this church, but a change in leadership occurred that undermined nearly everything that we had come to value there. My second post provided a detailed account of my evaluation by the new leadership (elders) upon submission of my completed "Questionnaire for Prospective Sunday School Teachers". (I had wanted to help lead my son's highschool discipleship group.) The evaluation became a mutual trial of the elders' and my beliefs. The verdict they reached was that I would not be allowed to teach in the church; the verdict I reached was that my family needed a new church home.
I may have exhausted my options for fellowship in an evangelical church here in Springfield, but I think I've now developed a specific strategy and some guiding principles to help me evaluate my prospects at evangelical churches that I visit in the future. Perhaps you will find these tips helpful for your situation.
Church-hunting Tips for the EC
1. Apply the evolution "litmus test": Disclose your vocation and EC status to church leaders at the earliest opportunity (e.g., the first time you have the pastor over for dinner). After first assuring them of your belief in creation, ask point-blank if they have a major issue with your EC views. Don't expect them to be EC themselves; that's not the point of the test. You just want to assess their response. Can they handle the challenge, or do they suddenly regard you as an unbeliever and attempt to aggressively debate the point? Even if the pastor and elders pass the test, ask if there are others on staff or in leadership who are passionate defenders of young-earth creationism (YEC). If anyone of established influence in the church has such a passion for YEC, pursue church membership no further. Your presence will simply create division.
2. Apply the epistemology test: Ask the leadership about baptism and communion. These are perfect topics for assessing the nature of the church's critical realism. No need to bring up controversial issues like abortion, homosexuality, body-piercing or even women in the church. A discussion of modes and meanings of baptism and communion will immediately reveal if and how the leadership delineates between biblically sound practice and absolute truth. If they cannot concede that there is a difference between these (e.g., if they cannot accept as valid the fact that you regard your infant baptism as meaningful and sufficient for yourself), then move on.
3. Decide your level of engagement: Evaluate from the start if your goal is simply acceptance in the community of believers or if you also feel called to actively teach and promote serious consideration of science-theology issues. Some churches will marginally pass tests 1 & 2 and will accept your presence as long as you don't plan to teach and openly discuss your views. If that's acceptable, you can assure the pastor of this when you conduct tests 1 & 2. If you feel called to have greater influence, then make that clear from the start. In deciding between these two paths, be sure to consider other aspects of your personal situation, such as the impact on your spouse and children.
4. Honor the cause: Don't speak up or speak out about EC unless you're willing to live and demonstrate a genuine Christian life. If you want to be an ambassador for EC, then don't give the church any cause to dismiss your testimony. Commit to holy living, humble service (e.g., help in the nursery) and having a gracious demeanor.
5. Love the church: Find some way to cultivate and maintain your love for Christ's church. Given my situation, this is a difficult thing for me to do at the moment. Nevertheless, I'm intentionally reading and interacting with others to stir up this grace within me. As infuriating as your church tradition may be, it is your immediate family and part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, even Christ's bride. I recommend a soon-to-be released book by John Armstrong (I have read an advanced copy) called “Your Church is Too Small: Why unity in Christ's mission is vital to the future of the church”.
Submitted for Your Approval
In part three of my Becoming Unwanted story, I attempted to draw some tentative conclusions and to ask some difficult questions about what to do next. Like the Psalmist, I wrote that post with some degree of angst and unbridled emotion. My conclusions there were tentative; my assertions and hypothesis in the current essay are only slightly less tentative.
I welcome your participation in testing my thoughts. May we proclaim to one another the words of the apostle Paul: “
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church: Introduction 15 Feb 2010 8:15 PM (15 years ago)
This is the first post is a 10-part guest-post series on Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church.
For those of us that are Evangelicals, the Church is not a cultural or ethnic club, an institution to provide moral guidance, or even a religious organization. Although each of these aspects can be true of the Church (for better or worse), this is not what defines it. The Church is the corporate body of Christ, the collection of all sinners saved by grace and mandated to further the kingdom of God on earth. It manifests itself worldwide and more intimately at the local level. We look to the Church to feed us spiritually, even as we as individuals provide support to others in the body. We celebrate together, grieve together, share similar fears and dreams, and help each other when in need. We share a common purpose and a common spiritual ancestory.
In short, the Church is our family.
And problems within this family affect us at that deepest level. When the family rejects us, it can cause loneliness and despair. When the family is acting in a way that is unhealthy, we want to intervene to change that direction. And when members of the family are struggling in some way, we are eager to help. These problems are only too familiar for Evolutionary Creationists (EC) as we struggle to find our place in the evangelical family.
An Evolutionary Creationist Returns Home to the Evangelical Community
In a poignant article called Surprised by Joy, biologist Darrel Falk recounts how he returned to the Christian faith, but felt he could not return to the evangelical church.
So I got back on the road which leads to God—I began once more the life of faith. I never expected though that I could be a part of an evangelical community again; the differences between the facts of biology and the views of evangelical Christians seemed too great. So I did my best to live the life of an evangelical Christian without being in an evangelical fellowship. I had a deep and meaningful personal relationship with God, but corporate evangelicalism, I was certain, would have to be a thing of the past.But God has created us to be in relationships, relationships with both himself and with each other. Falk quickly realized that he was missing out on something essential; being part of the body is vital for both spiritual health and fulfillment and he longed to be part of the evangelical community. He was able to finally return to that community, and that return was surprising as it was joyous.
Eight Perspectives on the Relationship between Evolutionary Creationists and the Church
Over the next two months, 8 guest contributors will discuss various aspects of the relationship between evangelical ECs and their spiritual family, the evangelical church. Starting next Monday, evolutionary biologist Douglas Hayworth will discuss his own challenge in finding a church home within the evangelical community. Very few evangelical churches welcome the active participation of ECs, and Doug will provide some guidance on how an EC can approach this search for a welcoming community. I believe his points will be helpful to other ECs, but I am also hoping other ECs can provide Doug with some feedback of their own as his own journey has reached somewhat of a crisis point.
The next two contributors will discuss how they have responded to anti-evolutionism within the evangelical church. TWU biology chair Dennis Venema will talk about his experiences addressing unhealthy views of science and God’s creation in the local church. He will use the particular example of how he provided an alternative view to the “Focus on the Family Truth Project” classes in both his own church community and in a neighbouring church. ASA webmaster Terry Gray will then consider the response at the denominational level. In the 1990’s, Gray was an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and was put on trial by his denominational body for his views on evolution. Today, Gray is part of an effort within his current denomination (the Christian Reformed Church – CRC) to take a positive stand on the compatibility between evolutionary biology and the Christian faith. Gray will discuss both of these experiences in his article.
The first half of the series will conclude with an article by palaeoanthropologist and evolutionary biologist Jim Kidder. Jim encountered Christ while in Japan, and then anti-evolutionism within the American evangelical church. He will provide some personal perspectives on his journey and relationship with the church.
The second half of the series will focus on how we as EC’s can help our brothers and sisters in Christ develop a healthy view of the science / faith relationship. Engineer, scientist, and bible teacher Phil Wala’s article will discuss how evangelical scientists can help their fellow evangelicals in this area. Critical thinking has never been a strong-point within our community (to put it mildly!), but this skill (required by all good scientists) will be very helpful for evangelicals trying to come to grips with a constantly changing modern world.
Two pastors will then provide their perspectives on the science / faith dialogue. Baptist minister Murray Hogg will discuss the challenge of tackling this difficult and controversial topic. If not handled with wisdom, care and humility, EC’s “eagerness to help” may be counterproductive. Using the Apostle Paul’s approach to Christian maturity and the “weaker brother”, Murray will discuss how we can be helpful without being hurtful. Keith Suckling, an Anglican priest, will then discuss his experiences leading a Test of Faith course in his church. "Test of Faith" has just released several new curricula and teaching materials, and it will be interesting to hear some feedback from one of the early users of this material. (Note: The material is not yet available in North America but should be available soon).
The series will conclude with a post by church elder and chemical engineer Allan Harvey. Allan taught a science and faith course in his Presbyterian church several years ago. His lesson on evolution contains the best simplified overview of “definitions of evolution” for Christians that I have seen. Allan will provide a post on “10 lessons learned on teaching a science / faith course in the church”.
Promoting Health in the Family
Many of the series published on this blog (with the exception of the student series) have been somewhat academic in nature – academic in the sense that one can interact with the posts without necessarily making a huge personal investment. This one may be somewhat different. All of the posts will share very personal perspectives on the science / faith dialogue, and challenge each of us in various personal ways. How could it be any other way? The topic of evolution and the Church is about our relationship with our spiritual family, our desire to help our family grow in its relationship with its Creator, and our longing to remove the stumbling-block of antievolutionism so that faith in Christ is considered both viable and desirable.
We want to be part of the family; we want our family to be healthy; we want to see our family grow.
Enjoy the series.
Science and Worship ... and a New Series on Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church 9 Feb 2010 6:14 PM (15 years ago)
Last Friday I had the opportunity to attend Jennifer Wiseman’s lecture and presentation “Universe of Wonder, Universe of Mystery” at McMaster University. Wiseman is Chief of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center – meaning she get’s to play with the Hubble whenever she wants. (Disclaimer: I believe she describes her job somewhat differently). This was a thoroughly enjoyable experience to not only see how “the incredible tools of modern astronomy are revealing a universe of staggering beauty and baffling mysteries”, but also to hear anecdotes from someone “on the inside” studying this staggering beauty and helping to answer some of these baffling mysteries.
Science should be an Instrument of Worship
Biologos recently published Wiseman’s paper “Science as an Instrument of Worship” which asks the question “Can recent scientific discovery inform and inspire worship and service”? The obvious answer is “of course”; Christians have always been inspired to worship God because of his creation. However, as Wiseman notes, Evangelicalism’s ambivalence toward science has in some sense muted our praise rather than, as advances in science should, enhance it. This is due to a combination of factors, including a) our general ignorance of science (the standard Evangelical is relatively uninformed in this discipline) b) the controversy over science within evangelicalism (many voices are trying to “inform the uninformed” but these voices do not agree on the correct information), and c) the uncertainty of church leaders on how to approach the topic, a timidity to address scientific issues when “there is no clear way to bring closure to the discussion”. On the last, Wiseman notes that:
There is simply no easy theological answer for why genetic codes get fouled up, why the plate tectonics that continually shape our continents also drive earthquakes and destruction, which technologies are ethical, and whether God may sustain and redeem life in other star systems. The fact that the “natural processes” that God has created can sometimes enable and sometimes destroy life is difficult to explain when you are facing someone suffering directly from disease or natural disaster. The idea that human life has only been around for a small fraction of the history of life on earth or an even tinier fraction of the history of the universe is hard to address, given that our Scriptures focus on God’s relationship to humans.But these uncertainties and difficult questions should not make us timid; God never promised to answer all our questions, only that he is in control and that all things will be right in the end. And the controversy over the “how” of creation (even though to many of us, this “controversy” is manufactured) should not stop us from joining in unison in praise for the Creator. As to the lack of scientific knowledge, and an unhealthy view towards science? Well, many of us are trying to address this.
Dealing with Science in the Church
This unhealthy view of science within the evangelical church is a very personal problem for many evangelical Evolutionary Creationists (ECs). How do we let our Christian family see that creation is even more amazing than they currently imagine? How do we deal with hostility towards certain aspects of creation within the local church? Within our denominations? How can we ensure that science, all of science, is an instrument of worship rather than a distraction from worship, or worse, an instrument of disunity?
Starting next week, a new series called “Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church” will be published on this blog. The series will include guest contributions from 8 other Evangelicals who have grappled with (and in most cases are still grappling with) some of these questions. But each of these participants will also provide answers to some of these questions, answers that I think will be helpful to other ECs grappling with these questions. These ECs come from a wide variety of denominational backgrounds and include scientists, pastors, church leaders, and ordinary “evangelicals in the pew”. But all of them share a passion for promoting a positive relationship between science and the Christian faith. In the end, we want our church family to appreciate God’s creation for what it is, and not for what we think it should be.
Polkinghorne Quotes #13: Divine Action, Evil, and Slandering God 31 Jan 2010 6:12 PM (15 years ago)
This is the 13th post in a series on the writings of John Polkinghorne.
Last Sunday morning Dave Toycen, president of World Vision Canada, was interviewed by our pastor. Dave had just returned from Haiti and was providing us with some first hand accounts of the devastation caused by the earthquake that had rocked Haiti a couple of weeks earlier. The stories were heartrending.
The first song we sang that morning was Indescribable. Now, this isn’t my favourite worship song and I usually simply stop singing when the second verse starts with “Who has told every lightning bolt where it should go …”. I’m always surprised that more people don’t find this line a little uncomfortable (Anyone here been hit by lightening? Anyone have someone they love killed by lightening?), but given current events, I was sure others must also see the problem.
Apparently not. The song continued without even a hint of irony. Ok, how about we change that line to “Who has told every tectonic plate when is should slide …”. Does that help illustrate the problem? Maybe we need to be a little blunter: “Did God kill all those people in Port-au-Prince?”
Divine Action and Evil
Polkinghorne is acutely aware of the problem of Divine action and evil. As he indicates:
The more strongly one is able to speak of God’s particular action in the world, the more firmly one asserts that world to be subject to his purposive will, so much the more forceful becomes the problem of the widespread evil within it. (Science and Providence, page 59)As orthodox Christians (and in opposition to those who hold to process theology), we believe that God acts: he upholds his creation, he is continually creating, and he has acted in very particular ways in history (most notably the incarnation). But must we speak of particular “natural” disasters as “acts of God”? Was it “God’s will” that all those Haitians died? If God is good, why is there “natural” evil?
Free-Process Theodicy
I doubt that the “Problem of Evil” will ever fully make sense to us, at least this side of paradise. However, I do think that Polkinghorne’s free-process defence is the closest we may get. As he says:
I think the only possible solution lies in a variation of the free-will defence, applied to the whole created world. One might call it ‘the free-process defence’. In his great act of creation I believe that God allows the physical world to be itself, not in Manichaean opposition to him, but in that independence which is Love’s gift of freedom to the one beloved.Just as God gives humanity the freedom to be itself and to make choices (even when those choices are not the one’s God wishes his children would make), so too God gives the whole of his creation the freedom to be itself. And the evil in this world (both moral and natural), is the price of this freedom. I suspect the same reasoning that applies to the free-will defence (See Plantinga's “God, Freedom, and Evil” ) applies for the most part to the free-process defence.
…
The Cosmos is given the opportunity to be itself. (Science and Providence, page 66)
Actually, that is NOT God’s Will
When evil occurs, Christians often say “It must be God’s will”. But I am not sure this is necessarily true. In fact, I am sure that many of the choices that God’s creatures make are not the choices God would make. As Polkinghorne notes:
God no more expressly wills the growth of a cancer than he expressly wills the act of a murderer, but he allows both to happen. He is not puppetmaster of either men or matter. (Science and Providence, page 68)So in the face of tragedy, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to opine “It must be God’s will”. And just as we shouldn’t accuse God of causing the genocide in Rawanda, neither should we accuse him of causing the earthquake in Haiti.
And while we are at it, maybe we should make sure our worship songs do not slander God.
Evangelical Pastors and the Creation, ID, Evolution Minefield 3 Jan 2010 4:40 PM (15 years ago)
Being a pastor must be one of the more unenviable vocations. It is both highly stressful and spiritually demanding. Although responsible for the spiritual well-being of the members in their churches, many pastors have nowhere to turn for their own spiritual needs (or questions). This combination of factors is probably partly responsible for the high levels of burn-out and depression among the pastorate.
Pastors and the Science-Faith Dialogue
Dealing with the volatile science-faith dialogue is an area of added difficulty for the modern pastor. Ours is a rapidly changing world, and technological advances due to new scientific discoveries are responsible for most of these changes. However, even though science is such an important factor in our modern culture, few pastors seem to have adequate scientific training. And since most voices within evangelicalism (with the exception of our scientists) are so strongly anti-evolution or pro-IDM, it is no wonder that most pastors default to this anti-evolution position. In fact, given the personal and professional risks inherent in publicly defending the compatibility of science and the Christian faith, one could easily forgive those pastors who do understand this compatibility for not proclaiming it from the pulpit.
Tim Keller’s Pastoral Approach to the Dialogue on Evolution
Tim Keller should command all of our respect. I’m usually suspicious of “mega-church movements” (my odd mix of conservative anabaptist & Plymouth Brethren upbringing is probably responsible for this bias), but Keller’s approach at Redeemer in the heart of Manhattan (including his unflinching stance against consumerism) is both effective and laudable. In the past, Keller has been unafraid to enter the science-faith fray with a qualified support for theistic evolution (see our past discussion: "Would your church allow you to publicly support Evolution?"). More recently, he co-sponsored the first Biologos workshop that brought together evangelical scientists, theologians, and pastors to explore the relationship between science and faith. Many good papers were presented at this forum.
Keller’s contribution to the workshop included the paper "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople". As any good pastor, Keller’s priority in the discussion is its effect on the Christian laity (If only all pastors were more concerned with their parishioners than with their “ministry”!). What questions about evolution are at the forefront for ordinary Christians? What are the theological implications of evolution? How will these questions, answers, and implications affect the spiritual health of the individual and the church? These are the questions Keller sets out to address.
Keller’s Advice to other Pastors
But Keller also provides important advice to other pastors as well. In his paper he states that:
… if I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people. Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars. But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it?Now this type of response is indicative of a man that doesn’t shrink from his responsibilities. No parade of excuses (even entirely justified excuses). Keller knows the needs of “ordinary people learning to follow Jesus in our time” (part my own church’s motto) and also understands that pastors are probably in the best position to fulfill these needs.
This is one of the things that parishioners want from their pastors. We are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew. I’m aware of what a burden this is. I don’t know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging. Nevertheless, I believe this is our calling.I encourage everyone with an interest in the science / faith dialogue (especially pastors!) to read Keller’s paper. Although I’m not sure I agree with Keller’s response to the 3rd important question he articulates (the historicity of Adam and Eve), I really like the summarized answer he gives to the question:
Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in an historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue and so Christians who believe God used evolution must be open to one another’s views.This is what we need from our pastors: The courage and confidence to address difficult topics but tempered with Christian humility (we don’t have all the answers and must be prepared to admit we are sometimes wrong), and the desire to encourage Christian unity in the face of theological differences.
A Harbinger of Change?
I have often thought that my own pastor’s response to the evolution controversy was the best one could hope to hear in an evangelical church. In his message on creation a couple years ago he briefly noted that: “It doesn’t matter if God created through evolution or Intelligent Design”. Ok, not a great way to frame the choice, but at least he proclaimed a healthy view of creation that was not just about origins.
However, maybe I am being too pessimistic about the chances for positive discussions on science & faith in our churches. Maybe it is not just our scientists and theologians that are making progress here; if Keller is any indication, maybe this positive change is happening at the ground level of Evangelicalism as well.
Questions
I’d be interested in what others have to say on this. Maybe the shrill voices insisting that evolution & faith cannot be reconciled are just the loud ones and not necessarily a significant majority. Maybe having someone of Keller’s stature publicly defending the compatibility of evolution and faith will provide the impetus for other pastors to take a similar stand (or at least investigate the topic further). Is there reason to be optimistic? Are there other similar examples of agents of change? Maybe the most important question of all: How can we help our pastors start, continue, or publicize this discussion?
Polkinghorne Quotes #12: A Dangerous and Satisfying Truth 24 Dec 2009 9:37 AM (15 years ago)
This is the 12th post in a series on the writings of John Polkinghorne.
The “Two Books” is a common metaphor in the science / faith discussion. We study both scripture (God’s Word) and the book of nature (God’s works). Since God is the author of both books, both can lead us to truth. Sometimes the truths we encounter are so counterintuitive that many exclaim “That’s impossible!” (eg. scientific truths like quantum mechanics or common descent; biblical truths like the resurrection). But even though these truths seem to contradict common sense (are virtually nonsense), on close examination, their veracity is demonstrated by the evidence.
Although all truth is God’s truth, not all truth is equally significant. As Polkinghorne notes, both of God’s books contain truth, but they differ greatly in the potential to impact our lives:
There is one important difference, however, between scientific belief and religious belief. The latter is much more demanding and more dangerous. I believe passionately in quantum theory, but that belief doesn’t threaten to change my life in any significant way. I cannot believe in God, however, without knowing that I must be obedient to his will for me as it becomes known to me. God is not there just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity; he is there to be honoured and respected and loved as my Creator and Saviour. Beware! Let me utter a theological health warning or, rather, promise: “Reading the Bible can change your life”The truth in scripture can change our lives because it introduces us to the Author of creation, the purpose of creation, and the purpose for our lives. The book of nature, no matter how awe inspiring and wondrous, can never do that. We should never confuse the book for the author (a mistake that has been made repeatedly since the dawn of human consciousness).
Searching for Truth, page 16
As we prepare to celebrate the time when the Author inserted himself into the book of nature (in an altogether unexpected fashion!), let us give thanks for both his books. And we should also remember that no matter how satisfying it is to gain knowledge from these two books, knowing the Author and being known by him (1 Cor 13:12) is even better.
Merry Christmas.
Evolution and Creation: The disconnect between how students process data and what they believe 21 Dec 2009 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Marlowe C. Embree. Marlowe teaches psychology at the University of Wisconsin Colleges and published the 7-part series The Social Psychology of the Origins Debate last fall. He is currently conducting some original research on whether personality differences affect a person’s conclusions regarding creation and evolution, and how likely they are to change their views. This post is the last in a 3-part series where Marlowe shares some of the findings of his research.
In my previous two posts, I presented information about student views of origins and their relationship to personality type differences. In this last post, I will address some concerns related to the nature and source of knowledge.
A) Epistemology and Metaphysics
Philosophers use the terms “epistemology” and “metaphysics” (or “ontology”) to make the distinction I have in mind. Epistemology is the study of how truth can be known, what its sources and justification (or warrant) might be, and how we distinguish truth from opinion. The underlying conclusions about what is true is the domain of metaphysics or ontology. Different persons have different ideas about what is ultimately or noncontingently real, for instance: materialists believe that only matter is real (and thus presumably, in some sense or another, eternal), while theists believe that matter exists only because of the logically prior existence of God.
B) Relationship between how students process data and what they believe
For students, the data from this survey show that links between epistemology and metaphysics were modest at best. Correlations between items of the two different types were no higher than 0.2. Though it would seem logical to presume that epistemological views of such items as the existence of extrascientific sources of truth, the religious neutrality of the scientific method, the capacity for human certainty, and the like would be correlated with worldview stances like CR, TE, and SE, this did not largely prove to be the case. Nor did personality type differences correlate significantly with epistemological items on the attitude survey.
It appears that, for most students, their conclusions about reality are not grounded in a well thought out theory of knowledge. What students believe about God, about evolution, and about the relationship between science and religion does not appear, for the most part, to be a product of independent thinking. A few remarks about this observation follow.
First, this conclusion seems true for all worldview groups. The stereotype that only certain individuals (those whose conclusions one disputes!) are subject to this problem appears well refuted. Students across the worldview spectrum appeared equally subject to this kind of epistemological disconnect.
Second, the conclusion refers only to students in my research sample and cannot meaningfully be generalized beyond the sample. Since my students are at a freshman-sophomore level, the problem is likely a cognitive-developmental one. Researchers into the development of student epistemology (e.g., Belenky et al.) suggest a five-stage model of the development of independent thinking; many of my students have confirmed to me, in informal discussions, that they perceive themselves to be at an early stage of this developmental model. This isn’t a criticism of them; it’s natural for students who are just making the transition from high school to college to be at this point.
C) Conclusions and Next Steps
Overall, this study provides modest support for the notion that personality differences significantly mediate student beliefs about the origins debate and I believe further research is warranted. In future work, I hope to explore in more depth relationships among neurology, micro- and macrocultural differences, cognitive styles, personality, and views of origins.
Future studies might examine longitudinal impacts of higher education on changing attitudes about origins as mediated by type differences. There is some indication that there are discipline-specific impacts (for instance, students of biology may end up with different views than students of psychology), though rigorous empirical examination of this question in the light of type theory has not yet been completed. Self-selection biases represent an obvious confound, since students cannot be randomly assigned to different courses and since type likely plays a major role in determining student course selection. A content analysis of qualitative information, based on student narratives about their changing (or constant) views about origins throughout their college career, could prove quite interesting.
Given the ethics governing my research, I can’t directly ask interested readers to help me collect more data at this time, but would value opportunities to dialogue about this as a future possibility. You can also review a summary of my research on my college website.
Personality Types mapped to Positions on Origins: Student Survey Results 17 Dec 2009 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Marlowe C. Embree. Marlowe teaches psychology at the University of Wisconsin Colleges and published the 7-part series The Social Psychology of the Origins Debate last fall. He is currently conducting some original research on whether personality differences affect a person’s conclusions regarding creation and evolution, and how likely they are to change their views. This post is the second in a 3-part series where Marlowe shares some of the findings of his research.
In my first post, I presented some introductory data relating to the prevalence among college students of four different views of origins (creationism, theistic evolution, secular evolution, and “other”). In this post, I will address the question of personality type and its possible influence on which view a given student might choose to adopt.
In reviewing the material below, a few significant points should be clearly understood. My research should not be construed as an attempt to dismiss the validity of any of the views of origins on the grounds that they are in some way a mere artifact of personality. Psychological research can never, within its own proper universe of discourse, pass judgment on the validity of a person’s ideas; what it can do is elucidate reasons why different people have a tendency to gravitate to different views. Social psychologists speak of the Verstehen-Erklären distinction to distinguish between an attempt to understand something “from the inside” (sympathetically or emically) and an attempt to explain away something “from the outside” (critically or etically). Philosophically and personally, my sympathies are with the former. Those who seek to use my work to disparage or discredit the worldview perspectives of others have completely missed the spirit of my research.
A) Personality Diversity and Cognitive Styles
Many different factors likely influence the viewpoint an individual comes to hold on the origins debate, including but not limited to cultural socialization, religious or nonreligious self-identification, and level and type of education, just to name a few. One potential influence that, to date, has not been extensively explored has to do with personality differences and the possible link between these differences and variations in information processing and cognitive styles. My research examines potential relationships between personality diversity, as viewed from a Jungian perspective and operationalized by means of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and student views of the origins debate.
a. Background on the Jungian Model
Jung proposed that four irreducible functions underlie all mental activity. In the standard Myers-Briggs terminology, they are known as Sensing (S), iNtuition (N), Thinking (T), and Feeling (F).
Both Sensing and iNtuition are means of gathering information about the world without otherwise analyzing or prioritizing it. As such, they are opposing forms of Perceiving (P). Sensing involves a here-and-now, observant focus on present realities as they present themselves to the five senses; hence, individuals who emphasize Sensing as their means of information-gathering tend to become practical, detail-minded, concrete, and application-oriented. In contrast, iNtuition involves a broad-brush, conceptual or imaginative focus on future possibilities as they arise from the unconscious mind or by means of a “sixth sense”; hence, individuals who prefer iNtuition are likely to become creative, big-picture, abstract, and theory-oriented.
Once information is gathered, it can be evaluated or assessed using either of two so-called Judging (J) functions, either Thinking or Feeling. Thinking involves an impersonal, objective analysis with a focus on causes and effects, leading to an orientation among those who prefer Thinking that is calm, consistent, logical, and efficient. Feeling, on the other hand, involves a personal, subjective assessment focused on personal and collective values, producing among those who prefer Feeling a style that is sensitive, individualizing, empathic, and harmony-seeking. However, it should be carefully noted that Thinking does not mean intellect (there are no correlations between T-F and IQ, for instance) and Feeling does not have emotion (both Ts and Fs have emotions, but manage them differently).
Each of these functions can be expressed either in an outward-looking, Extraverted fashion or an inward-looking, Introverted manner, and one of these two modes dominates the entire personality. Finally, a person can either be drawn to closure and structure (a so-called Judging type) or to openness and flexibility (a so-called Perceiving type) in the conduct of their outer lives. Thus, the four possible preferences (E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P) together yield 16 possible psychological types (e.g., INFP). The relative prevalence of the sixteen psychological types in my research sample is presented in Table 3. Isabel Briggs Myers and others have confirmed that liberal arts students tend to be disproportionately NF, so this type distribution is not surprising.
b. Current Consensus of relationship between Personality Types and Religion
The existing type literature strongly suggests a consistent relationship between Feeling and religion (formal citations are not provided in this overview, but are readily available upon request). Most religious leaders and most self-identified religious persons have a higher probability of a Feeling preference than the general population, whereas secularists tend to prefer Thinking. The Sensing-iNtuition preference appears to relate to the conservative-liberal disparity within religious circles, with Sensing types more likely to adhere to conservative forms of religion and iNtutive types more likely to identify with liberal forms. Thus, the main hypotheses of this study refer to the four so-called functional combinations (Sensing-Thinking, Sensing-Feeling, iNtution-Thinking, and iNtuition-Feeling). It would be expected that creationists would be disproportionately SF, theistic evolutionists disproportionately NF (and perhaps NT), and secular evolutionists disproportionately ST (and perhaps NT).
B) Relationship between Personality Type and Attitudes to Origins: Initial Results
The Thinking-Feeling and Judging-Perceiving dimensions yielded statistically significant differences among the four worldview groups (see Table 4).
CR and TE respondents were statistically higher in Feeling, and SE and OT respondents higher in Thinking, suggesting that theists vs. nontheists utilize strikingly different ways of turning inputs (data) into conclusions. This may suggest an underlying genetic propensity to view the world in either personal or impersonal ways.
CR and SE respondents, though opposite in many respects, were statistically higher in Judging, while TE and OT respondents were higher in Perceiving. This makes sense given that Judgers seek closure and certainty (whether theistic or atheistic certainty) that might preclude seeing any value in their opponents’ positions, while Perceivers seek openness and flexibility (which might include a desire to find value in both sides of a debate or a tendency to presume that no simple answers can be correct).
By a Self-Selection Ratio (SSR) criterion (a common comparative statistic utilized in typological research), each worldview was characteristically adopted by different types (see Table 5). Creationists are most likely to be ISFJ or ESFJ, among the most traditional and group-minded of the types. Secular evolutionists are most likely to be INTJ or ENTJ, among the most iconoclastic and individualistic of the types. Theistic evolutionists are most likely to be ISFP or INFP, among the most tender-minded and harmony-seeking of the types. Thus, individuals’ core motives may shape their worldview preferences in interesting ways.
C) Next Post
This research may suggest that some (by no means all!) cultural disputes about origins may reflect “arguments about the shape of the table”, in which each disputant defaults to his or her dominant cognitive posture (as determined by her/his personality type). This may encourage a greater willingness to find value in the ideas of others with whom one disagrees, and may suggest a way to disagree more respectfully. Indeed, one goal of my research is to demonstrate that what appear to be disputes about specific issues are often meta-disputes in disguise, in which each party is really defending his or her own characteristic mental process. If the real issue is one of process (how one thinks), apparent disputes about content (what one thinks) will be permanently unresolvable. My last post will address questions about the relationships between mental process and mental content among students.
Personality Types and Student Views of the Origins Debate: Part 1 – Background and Results of the Origins Views Survey 15 Dec 2009 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Marlowe C. Embree. Marlowe teaches psychology at the University of Wisconsin Colleges and published the 7-part series The Social Psychology of the Origins Debate last fall. He is currently conducting some original research on whether personality differences affect a person’s conclusions regarding creation and evolution, and how likely they are to change their views. This post is the first in a 3-part series where Marlowe shares some of the findings of his research.
I am currently doing research that explores the correlation between personality type differences and student views of the “origins debate”. The influence of personality types in this discussion has not been adequately explored, and my initial findings suggest some interesting relationships. In this post, I will provide a background to the origins debate in the dialogue between religion and science and comment on the results of the first part of my survey that explores student views on origins. In a second post later this week I will provide a background on personality diversity and cognitive styles, and summarize the results of the second part of my research which matches student views on origins to personality types. In a third post I will comment on what the survey shows regarding how students determine “truth”, and what they believe.
A) The Origins Debate and the Relationship between Religion and Science
A century and a half after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Americans outside the professional scientific community remain deeply divided about the “origins debate”. The majority of recent national surveys converge on the general finding that about 40-50% of Americans adopt a creationist view, roughly 40% adhere to a theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist view, and the remaining 10-20% affirm a secular evolutionary view. Underlying this debate is a larger dispute about the best way to conceptualize the relationship between religion and science, which has been sharpened in recent years by the writings of the so-called “new atheists”.
The rise of evolutionary psychology as a new discipline has led to aggressive attempts to explain (or, in the minds of some critics, “explain away”) religion in terms of an evolutionary artifact (technically, a so-called spandrel) related to the modularization of cognitive processes, by way of the development of a so-called “hyperactive agency detection device” in the brain. Some recent research on the relationship between religious experience and brain activity, such as Persinger’s work with his self-styled “God helmet”, have received much attention in the popular media, though they have been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds by others in the neuropsychology community (e.g., Mario Beauregard).
As a result of the meta-level differences that exist among those who ponder questions of how science and religion might be related, those who seek to inform themselves about these issues in order to resolve the origins debate for themselves are confronted with a plethora of mutually contradictory perspectives and may well be at a loss to know how to resolve the contradictions. It would not be surprising if many Americans, including college undergraduates, remain confused if not conflicted about these issues.
B) Student Survey on Origins
For the first part of my research, I administered a 50-item questionnaire measuring attitudes about biological origins and related matters to 429 UW Colleges students. Based on responses to the origins attitude survey, students’ level of belief in God and their degree of acceptance of mainstream science (organic evolution) were measured separately, to yield (by way of a median split method) a fourfold classification scheme: belief in God but not in evolution (creationism or CR); belief in both God and evolution (theistic evolution or TE); belief in evolution but not in God (secular evolution or SE); and, perhaps somewhat incongruously, belief in neither (other or OT).
Among students surveyed, 56% were creationists, 13% were theistic evolutionists, 16% were secular evolutionists, and 15% were “other”. The table below describes these results.
These results show that 69% of the students believe in God, somewhat below the 80% figure within the general American adult population. However, only around 29% accept evolution, which is well below the 60% figure for the general American population. It is difficult to say why these results are discrepant; it may be due to the general conservativism of the rural Midwest, or due to the manner in which I defined acceptance vs. rejection of evolution (using a more attitudinally sensitive methodology than is typically used in national opinion surveys). Utilization of my survey methodology in a wider geographic setting could prove interesting. The Baylor University survey of religious attitudes by region confirms an earlier finding by sociologist of religion Mark Silk that there are strong regional differences (for instance, religious conservativism is higher in the Midwest and South and lower in the East and West).
C) Is Theistic Evolution A Unique Position?
To some extent, this study suggests that, as students view the world, TE is an intermediate or compromise position between CR and SE. On a majority of the origins inventory items, TE respondents endorsed the items at a level in between the responses of CR and SE individuals (suggesting that a primary motive for these students is to split the difference between CR and SE or to mediate in some way between them). However, on some items, TEs respond uniquely. TEs were the most likely of the three groups to agree that “science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God”, that “both those who believe in God and those who do not may be rational persons”, that “both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the public schools”, and that “God used evolutionary processes to create life”. TEs were less likely than the other two groups to agree that “there is an inherent conflict between science and religion” and that “if evolutionary theory is true, it is fatal to all forms of religious belief”. To this extent, TE represents a unique point of view that is a “third way” all its own, rather than a mere compromise between creationism and secular evolution.
D) Conclusion
The results of this first survey on student views on origins were used to map these views to personality types. In my next post, I will summarize my findings on this relationship by connecting the results of this survey with these students Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I will also include a summary of Carl Jung’s taxonomy of personality for those who are unfamiliar with it.
Copyright © 2009 - Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D. - All rights reserved
Personality Types and Student Views of the Origins Debate: Series Introduction 12 Dec 2009 6:38 PM (15 years ago)
Last fall, Marlowe Embree published a series on The Social Psychology of the Origins Debate. In that series he mentioned that he was conducting some original research on whether personality differences affect a person’s conclusions regarding creation and evolution, and how likely they are to change their views. I’m pleased to welcome Marlowe back to "An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution". In a new three-part series to be published over next couple of weeks, he will provide a brief review of some of his research results. The subjects of this research were students at the college where he teaches, somewhat serendipitous given that our last series provided perspectives on the science / faith dialogue from various post-secondary students.
Psychology is often treated by Christians with even more suspicion than biology, with the interface between psychology and religion being the “worst of the lot”. So I suspect that this discussion about the affect of personality factors on views of origins could be somewhat contentious. After all some people (from all sides of the debate!) may maintain that (correct) conclusions on human origins are a matter of examining the evidence (whether scientific, theological, or biblical), and that these conclusions are not influenced by an individual’s personality. Others who share my evangelical faith will probably point out that this faith is provided to us by the grace of God through the leading of his Holy Spirit, and that an individual’s personality type does not influence our, or God’s, decisions. I would even wholeheartedly agree with the first clause in both these statements, but not necessarily with the conclusion that personality plays no role in these matters. (At a minimum, I’d like to hear more of what Marlowe and others are discovering in this area).
I believe that this discussion is both worthwhile and helpful for the evangelical community; after all, if we are to peacefully settle this ongoing debate about origins (and unfortunately, notwithstanding the efforts of many evangelicals, it is still a debate and not a dialogue), shouldn’t we try to understand how and why people make decisions and form their beliefs?
Enjoy the series.
Speaking the Truth (about science) in Love - and Focus on the Family’s Truth Project 3 Dec 2009 10:26 AM (15 years ago)
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:14-16)Christian Unity
I really appreciate Ephesians chapter 4 where Paul admonishes believers to be unified in Christ, to be at peace with one another, and to treat each other with gentleness, love, and respect. We need to recognize both our individual gifts (eg. 1 Cor 12) and our individual frailties so that we can work to our common goal. This attitude will not only help us grow closer to Christ, but will also help us attract others to the family of God.
Truth
But being unified in love does not imply an anything-goes acceptance. Part of being family is helping each other mature in the faith, and this includes “speaking the truth in love”. Our faith is in Jesus Christ who is the “way, the truth, and the life”; articulating this truth and defending this truth (1 Pet 3:15-17) is part of our calling. Sometimes we need to discuss with, ask questions of, and even confront, our brothers and sisters in Christ. Truth is important.
Truth in Science
So what about truth in science? For many years the majority of evangelicals have loudly and vigorously opposed the theory of evolution, even though the evidence for common descent is now almost scientifically incontestable. So it is probably time for those of us that have travelled this journey of faith / science reconciliation to speak the truth in love. As Mark Noll notes, the methods of evangelical engagement with science have become “intellectually, biblically, theologically, apologetically, and spiritually” damaging.
Discussing the issues of Origins in the Church
As we discussed here almost two years ago, there are times to confront, times to dialogue, and times to remain silent on the topic of origins. However, as I admitted then (as still admit now) determining when to confront, when to dialogue and when to remain silent is notoriously difficult.
On a personal level, I think Bethany offers some good advice in this comment from her post last week. When discussing origins with other Christians, we should take into account whether the setting is appropriate, whether the science / faith issue has pastoral implications for the person involved (ie. We could do more harm than good), and maybe most importantly, whether we have the “relational currency” to challenge our Christian friend.
Focus on the Family’s “Truth” Project and Preaching Untruths in the Church
Focus on the Family is promoting their “Truth Project” to churches and small groups. A quick look at the lesson overview shows that, ironically, the Truth Project doesn’t seem to put much stock in truth when it comes to science (see lesson 5). For example, this lesson states that “Darwinian theory transforms science from the honest investigation of nature into a vehicle for propagating a godless philosophy”. Completely untrue.
Then later it is stated that:
A careful examination of molecular biology and the fossil record demonstrates that evolution is not a "proven fact."This might be technically defensible depending how badly one defined “evolution” and “proven”, but at the very minimum this is (maybe unintentionally) deceptive; hardly a harbinger for expecting much truth from the actual lessons.
Confronting Anti-evolution in the Church
Given what has been said above, I would like to propose a guideline for when we as ECs should NOT remain silent. When either 1) a Christian organization in which we participate or 2) our local Church officially promote anti-evolutionary views, I believe that we must speak up. In this instance, we must “speak the truth in love” and provide the message that:
a) the scientific evidence for common descent is massive
b) the acceptance of biological evolution is compatible with an evangelical expression of the Christian faith
For us to remain silent in these circumstances would be a disservice to the gospel. It would be unloving to our brothers and sisters who are being told that their faith rests on a specific view of science that is demonstrably false.
Dennis Venema’s response to the Truth Project
Dennis Venema is currently in this exact situation – and is speaking up. As he outlined in this comment last week, the Truth Project is being taught at his church. As a geneticist, he is particularly qualified to point out where scientific falsehoods are being promoted. Dennis offered to provide an official response for his church but was turned down. In lieu of that, he gave a talk to some interested church members in a private home.
I encourage my readers to check out Dennis’s talk entitled "Can an evangelical Christian accept evolution?" (the video is broken into 12 parts). As he indicated, this talk for his fellow church members is based on his "Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?" lecture (audio and slides) at the ASA conference this summer, but this more intimate discussion is targeted at a non-specialist audience.
I thought Dennis's presentation to his church friends was excellent; I believe it will be particularly helpful for someone new to this dialogue. And it was definitely provided in a spirit of speaking the truth in love. Hopefully this will encourage the rest of us to follow suit.
Ebook and Index for the Student Perspective Series 1 Dec 2009 1:33 AM (15 years ago)
This completes the series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective” - well, at least the main posts; the conversation in the comments seems to be continuing.
Thanks a lot to Ryan, Emiliano, Eric, Jordan, and Bethany for taking the time to participate (I realize “writing one more essay” can hardly be a huge priority for busy post-grad students), but also for the energy, personal investment, and thoughtful approach to each of your articles. This was definitely not an assignment that any of you “mailed in”. It showed. I know you have provided encouragement to many of us here in the EC wilderness.
As I’ve done for other series published on this blog, this series has been compiled into a Ebook. Anyone can download the free PDF version of it from scribd and redistribute it as they see fit (bearing in mind the Creative Commons license – which in my rudimentary understanding means “you can copy it, but don’t claim it as your own or charge money for it”).
I’ve also included a quick index below with direct links to each of the articles in the series.
1. Introduction (Steve Martin)
2. My journey from opposing evolution to studying it (Ryan Bebej)
3. An evolutionary biology student discovers Christ ... and the toxic anti-evolutionism that often taints the Gospel (Emiliano Carneiro Monteiro)
4. My transition from a conservative creationist to a theistic evolutionist - albeit with some unanswered questions (Eric DeVries)
5. Clarifying concepts in the creation-evolution dialogue (Jordan Mallon)
6. Avoiding the topic of Evolution in Christian academia: Reflections from a theology student (Bethany Sollereder)
Avoiding the topic of Evolution in Christian Academia: Reflections from a Theology Student 23 Nov 2009 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Bethany Sollereder and is the sixth in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Bethany is working on her Masters in Christian Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, where her studies focus on evolutionary theodicy from an evangelical perspective.
“I just don’t think that’s a very interesting question...” the professor said slowly from the front of the full lecture hall, “there are so many more important issues.” The first year class of graduate students collectively sighed in disappointment. The questions about evolution had poured in when they were told they could ask any question of a panel of professors at the end of the year long course in Christian thought and culture. The answer they received seemed like yet another evasion.
The Science – Faith Dialogue: Great Potential in Christian Academia
I have now spent six years in the Christian academy and I find it remarkably hard to understand why the discussion on the interaction between faith and science is so often avoided. If anything, it is a wonderful doorway into many “more important” topics such as hermeneutics, models of biblical inspiration, ancient worldview, cultural engagement, and interdisciplinary studies. The science-faith topic stems from and reaches into all these areas and many more. The beauty of this subject area is precisely that its implications are so wide-reaching. The same tools that you use to exegete Genesis 1-11 extend out into the rest of the biblical literature. For example, an understanding of ancient near eastern cosmology gained in Genesis 1 brings an excellent understanding of passages as diverse as 1 Chronicles 16, Job 26, Psalm 104, Isaiah 40, Philippians 2, and Revelation 21! A discussion that takes modern science into account can challenge traditional readings of everything from theodicy to literary criticism, leading to a wide array of interesting topics. Perhaps it is because it can lead in so many directions that professors avoid it: it is a conversation that might never end.
The Challenge of Teaching about Origins
On the other hand, the issue of origins in particular seems to be uniquely challenging from both an emotional and a spiritual perspective. Step the wrong way in this issue, and it is not simply belief in the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis that threatens to topple, but potentially a person’s entire faith! However, given the spiritual volatility of the topic, isn’t the Christian academy the perfect environment to critically examine issues of faith, and therefore issues of origins? Would it be better for the student to struggle through these issues in the context of leading a church or working in the secular environment? Yet, even though questions about origins are embarrassingly common, it seems that the topic is often sidestepped in order to avoid giving offense. Even when asked directly about it, answers from Christian faculty are often short and evasive; there seems to be a fear of committing too strongly to one side of the debate. Perhaps this betrays a lack of clear thought on the side of the faculty; perhaps it is simply an unwillingness to engage in such a volatile issue so directly. Yet it is precisely because it is such an explosive topic that we need more thorough training in the area.
“I feel so frustrated” a student once confessed to me, “I feel like everyone deals with the evolution debate as if it’s a conversation we’ve already had, yet I’ve never heard it talked about once in two years!” From the faculty’s point of view, I can imagine that dealing with the same issues over and over again, year after year, would be exhausting. It is true that addressing the hesitancies of students in relation to the science-faith interface must be tiring, especially when it can be a remarkably pedantic area, and can branch almost out of control. But that is not a good reason for avoiding it! I’m sure that New Testament Greek professors do not consider it an exhilarating task to teach the declensions year after year. However, delivering this technical information is foundational, and they realize that the relative drudgery of grammatical basics will one day lead to more interesting debates on interpretation.
Reclaiming the Study of God’s Works in our Culture
I wish that the science-religion dialogue would receive a similar grounding: some aspects of the topic may be tedious, but this grounding is necessary in light of the current cultural battles. And the cultural battle is real. A Gallup poll on Darwin’s 200th birthday found that only 39% of Americans accept evolution, while another 36% do not have an opinion either way. For one hundred and fifty years, evolution has provided biology with its unifying theory and the evidence for it has only strengthened over time. However, 61% of Americans still do not accept evolution as valid. Perhaps the ambivalence in the Christian academy is simply a reflection of the wider culture’s lack of conviction. In this case, it would be a great opportunity for the Church to rise up and become, once again, those who drive discovery of the natural world forward while providing a theological framework in which to understand those revelations.
New Resources for Evangelicals
At the Bible College I attended, a small faculty was responsible for covering a wide spectrum of academic disciplines. As a result, the idea of tackling the massive issues involved in the science-faith dialogue may have seemed quite daunting. Ten or fifteen years ago this task was even more difficult since there were so few books that affirmed both evolution and an evangelical faith. Today, however, there is a torrent of books which provide both the scientific and hermeneutical material necessary to “get past” the most common roadblocks to accepting evolution: how to read Genesis and how to reconcile the theory of human evolution with our affirmation of divine creation. Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Denis Lamoureux, and Loren and Deb Haarsma have all provided valuable resources to the evangelical community.
With so much good information “out there”, why is there still a reluctance to discuss the science-faith interaction in our academies? I think that we shy away from the challenges science presents to our interpretation of the Bible because there is always a “fear factor” involved in evangelical hermeneutics. This was clearly seen at my Bible College where biblical criticism was largely portrayed as that “slippery slope” where “liberals” began by questioning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ended up denying the resurrection of Christ. There was very little effort put into incorporating the beneficial aspects of criticism because there was so much fear that one might go “too far”. We evangelicals are happy to admit, as a sort of joke, how susceptible we are to guilt; it is much less frequently admitted how susceptible we are to fear. Yet the reality is that as God’s children we have nothing to fear when searching for truth in God’s Works and his Word. The discoveries of science and the tools of higher criticism help us to understand better the amazing world in which God has placed us and the ways in which God has revealed himself to us. With the excellent voices speaking from within both science and theology, the time is ripe for moving past this debate. But we should do this carefully by working through the issues rather than ignoring them.
Conclusion
Fortunately those first year students in that full lecture hall I mentioned in the opening did not have to wait long for a more helpful response. Another professor on the panel took the microphone and spoke about fossils, genetics, his preference for the term “evolutionary creation” over “theistic evolution”, and the importance of a robust theology of creation without extreme dogmatism over the method of creation. It was a brief answer, and it did indeed stir up controversy in some of the tutorial sessions after the class, but it was one of the first times I had observed a positive, informative answer that clearly dealt with some of the issues raised. I hope this type of response is a harbinger of what we can come to expect of Christian academia, and that Evangelical students will receive the guidance they need in the science-faith dialogue.
Clarifying Concepts in the Creation-Evolution Dialogue 16 Nov 2009 1:00 AM (15 years ago)
This is a guest post by Jordan Mallon and is the fifth in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Jordan is a Ph.D. student at the University of Calgary where he is studying the evolutionary palaeoecology of the Late Cretaceous herbivorous dinosaurs from Alberta.
The transition from young earth creationism to a position that reconciles evolution and faith doesn’t occur abruptly. It’s a process that takes time and usually proceeds by the gradual piecing together of concepts and information. This was certainly the case for me. When I was growing up, I sympathized with young earth creationism as taught by the conservative Lutheran church I attended. Now I research and teach evolutionary science at the university level, but only after a prolonged period of soul-searching and careful study during my post-secondary education. My theology of nature is still incomplete, but the clarifying concepts introduced below helped to deconstruct the barriers that often polarize the evolution-creation ‘debate’ and allowed me to gradually formulate what I consider a more integrated view of science and faith. Hopefully, these concepts will help other students in their struggle to harmonize evolution and evangelical Christianity.
1) Agency and Mechanism in Creation
The word ‘creationism’ is understood by many evangelical Christians to refer to the miraculous and instantaneous creation of life by God. This view is prevalent and has pigeonholed many of us into confusing agency for mechanism. That is, the act of creating becomes needlessly associated with divine intervention. The corollary is that any explanation for life’s diversity that doesn’t appeal to miracles, such as evolution, is assumed to somehow exclude God’s creative agency. Evolution is often described by believers and non-believers alike as ‘godless’.
This conflation is unfortunate because the Bible teaches that even natural processes, such as weather, are under God’s control (e.g., Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1 Sam 12:18; Job 5:10, 37:6; Ps 135:7, 147:8). More to the point, we are each called a creation of God (Ps 139:14) despite the fact that human conception and development proceeds by entirely natural processes. The Bible’s distinction between agency and mechanism therefore allows God to exercise His creativity using the laws of nature He instilled at the beginning of creation. In this sense, creationism doesn’t preclude evolution at all! I liken evolution to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence, in which God is “in, with, and under” the natural processes that produce biodiversity on Earth.
2) Methodological and Ontological Naturalism
If evolution were truly godless because it does not invoke divine intervention, then the same argument would necessarily apply to all of science because the scientific method excludes all appeals to the supernatural. Miracles, by definition, can’t be measured or explained and therefore they do not further our knowledge about how the universe works. Sir Isaac Newton once believed that the stability of our solar system was due to the miraculous intervention of God, but the French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace later showed that the stability could be explained entirely through the natural laws of gravity.
It’s important to note, however, that the preclusion of miracles from science is only done in practice. Science cannot comment on whether or not miracles happen, or whether or not God exists; science is neutral on these matters. God may perform miracles every day, but for the reasons given above, the scientific method simply can’t detect them. The search for natural processes that operate in the universe is called methodological naturalism. The atheistic belief that there’s no God and that the natural world is all that exists is called ontological naturalism. The former is perfectly in line with Christian principles, but the latter, obviously, is not.
3) Accommodation and Concordism
If there’s nothing inherently atheistic about the scientific theory of evolution, why do so many evangelicals oppose it so strongly? The answer in large part has to do with the assumptions we bring to the scriptures. Evangelicalism, under the influence of fundamentalism, has promoted the idea that in order to take the Bible seriously, we must believe that it provides a literal and accurate description of the physical universe. That is, God revealed to the authors of Scripture scientific facts about the universe that could not otherwise have been known to them at the time. This assumption is known as scientific concordism. A concordist interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts obviously does not leave room for evolution.
In spite of the popularity of concordism as it pertains to Genesis, history shows that it’s a largely unwarranted assumption. At various points in the past, prominent Christian scholars used the Bible to support numerous outdated ideas about science, most notably geocentrism (e.g., Jos 10:12; 1 Sam 2:8; 1 Chr 16:30; Job 38:4; Ps 19:4–6, 24:2, 50:1, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Ecc 1:5; Hab 3:11). These ideas have since fallen by the wayside in light of scientific knowledge, and Christians now read these parts of the Bible in a different way. Rather than blindly insisting that our understanding of the physical world must accord with a literal interpretation of these passages, we now appreciate that God sometimes accommodates His message to the limitations of human understanding. The sun may not literally rotate about the earth as the Bible describes, but it certainly appeared that way to the earth-bound Hebrew people of the Old Testament. The principle of accommodation is the understanding that God spoke to the authors of Scripture using language and imagery with which they were familiar. Many Christians now feel that, given the previous shortcomings of concordism, the Genesis creation account might likewise be better understood as an accommodation of God’s timeless message to the culture of the ancient Hebrew people. If that’s indeed the case, then accepting evolution may be no more heretical than accepting that the earth goes around the sun!
Further Reading
The concepts introduced above are obviously interrelated and merit much lengthier discussions than given in this essay, but time and space prevent further elaboration. I’ll offer instead a few relevant resources that helped shape my thoughts here. Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith’s co-authored book Paradigms on Pilgrimage dedicate a couple helpful chapters to exploring more fully the concepts of agency and mechanism, and methodological and ontological naturalism. Denis Lamoureux’s books Evolutionary Creation and I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution similarly provide a thorough discussion of the principles of accommodation and concordism. All the various concepts considered here are connected in Keith Miller’s edited volume Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Steve Martin tells a similar story to mine in a blog post here. Be sure to also see Steve’s selected bibliography for more resources about the relationship between science and faith.
An Update to the Selected Bibliography on Evangelicals and Evolution 13 Nov 2009 11:02 AM (15 years ago)
My current selected bibliography on evangelicals and evolution was getting a little long in the tooth (over two years without an update). I have now posted an updated PDF version of the selected bibliography. These are all resources that I have found helpful in my own research into the interaction of evolutionary science and an evangelical expression of the Christian faith.
Note that this is a personal bibliography and is thus biased to my own set of interests (eg. historical context of the dialogue, and the theological implications of evolution); it is certainly not a comprehensive list of resources. For example, the Haarsma’s Origins book is not on the list since I haven’t read it. However, this might be the first book I recommend to an evangelical from the reformed tradition who is investigating evolution & its faith implications for the first time.
As well as uploading the PDF version to scribd, I’ve reproduced the list of resources below.
Alexander, Denis. June 1999. Can science explain everything? scientific naturalism and the death of science. The Cambridge Papers 8 #2, , http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/naturalism.htm (accessed December 2006).
———. 2005. Is intelligent design biblical? Evangelicals Now, http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/EN_IDarticle.pdf.
———. 2001. Rebuilding the matrix : Science and faith in the 21st century. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Books.
———. Darwinian evolution: The really hard questions. in ASA 2007 Annual Meeting [database online]. [cited Nov 10 2009]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2007Alexander.mp3; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/edinburgh2007/papers/Edinburgh_Alexander_slides.pdf.
———. Does evolution have any religious significance? [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/Denis-Alexander-evolution-religious-significance-v2.pdf.
Bartholomew, David J. 2008. God, chance, and purpose : Can god have it both ways?. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beale, G. K. 2006. Myth, history, and inspiration: A review article of inspiration and incarnation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: 287-312.
Bebbington, D. W. 1989. Evangelicalism in modern britain : A history from the 1730s to the 1980s. London ; Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Bimson, John J. 2006. Reconsidering a "cosmic fall". Science and Christian Belief 18, (1): 63-81.
Bright, John. 2000. A history of israel. 4th ed. Louisville, Ky: Westminster J. Knox Press.
Brown, Warren S., H. Newton Malony, and Nancey C. Murphy. 1998. Whatever happened to the soul? : Scientific and theological portraits of human nature. Theology and the sciences. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Cobern, Bill. One christian's perspective on creation and evolution. in Western Michigan University (SLCSP) [database online]. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP176/SLCSP176.pdf.
Colling, Richard G. 2004. Random designer : Created from chaos to connect with the creator. Bourbonnais, Ill.: Browning Press.
Collins, Francis S. 2006. The language of god : A scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Free Press.
Collins, Robin. 2003. Evolution and original sin. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 469-501. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dembski, William. Christian theodicy in light of genesis and modern science. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf.
Dickerson, Richard. June 1992. The game of science: Reflections after arguing with some rather overwrought people. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44, (2): 137-138.
Domning, Daryl P., and Monika Hellwig. 2006. Original selfishness : Original sin and evil in the light of evolution. Ashgate science and religion series. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Enns, Peter. 2007. Preliminary observations on an incarnational model of scripture: Its viability and usefulness. Calvin Theological Journal 42, : 219-236.
———. 2006. Response to G. K. Beale’s review article on inspiration and incarnation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: 313-326.
———. 2005. Inspiration and incarnation : Evangelicals and the problem of the old testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
———. Inspiration & incarnation: Thoughts, musings, interactions, responses…about or inspired by the book. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://peterennsonline.com/ii/.
Falk, Darrel R. 2004. Coming to peace with science : Bridging the worlds between faith and biology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Finlay, Graeme. June 2008. Human evolution: How random process fulfils divine purpose. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (2): 103-114.
———. April 2003. Homo divinus: The ape that bears God’s image. Science and Christian Belief 15, (1): 17-40.
Fischer, D. 1994. In search of the historical adam: Part 2. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 46, : 47-57.
———. 1993. In search of the historical adam: Part 1. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 45, : 241-50.
Giberson, Karl. 2008. Saving darwin : How to be a christian and believe in evolution. New York: HarperOne.
Gingerich, Owen. 2006. God's universe. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Glover, Gordon. 2007. Beyond the firmament. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press.
Godfrey, Stephen J., and Christopher R. Smith. 2005. Paradigms on pilgrimage : Creationism, paleontology, and biblical interpretation. Toronto: Clements Pub.
Gould, Stephen J. Evolution as fact and theory. in Stephen J. Gould Library [database online]. 1981 [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.
Gray, Terry. 2003. Biochemistry and evolution. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 256-287. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
———. Complexity--yes! irreducible--maybe! unexplainable--no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. in ASA [database online]. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html.
Haarsma, Deborah, and Jennifer Wiseman. 2003. An evolving cosmos. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 97-119. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Haarsma, Loren. March 2002. Can many world views agree on science? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (1): 28-29.
———. Chance from a theistic perspective. in Talk Origins [database online]. July 29, 1996 [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html.
———. 2003. Does science exclude god? natural law, chance, miracles, and scientific practice. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 72-94. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
———. Is intelligent design scientific? in ASA [database online]. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.asa3.org:16080/ASA/meetings/Messiah2005/papers/IsIDScientific_ASA2005.htm.
Haarsma, Loren, and Terry Gray. 2003. Complexity, self organization, and design. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 288-312. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Hall, John. 2009. Chance for a purpose. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 61, (1): 3-12.
Harvey, Allan. Science and nature in christian perspective. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/.
Haught, John F., and Carl S. Helrich. 2005. Purpose, evolution and the meaning of life : Proceedings of the fourth annual goshen conference on religion and science. Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press.
Hedman, Bruce A. 1989. Mathematics, cosmology, and the contingent universe. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 41, (2): 99-103.
Hill, Carol. June 2007. A third alternative to concordism and divine accommodation: The worldview approach. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (2): 129-134.
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. 1989. The true image : The origin and destiny of man in christ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Hurd, James. June 2006. Reply to the real adam and original sin. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (2): 102-3.
———. 2003. Hominids in the garden. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 208-233. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Hyers, Conrad. 1984. Dinosaur religion: On interpreting and misinterpreting the creation texts. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36, (3): 142-148.
———. 1982. Biblical literalism: Constricting the cosmic dance. The Christian Century Aug 4, : 832-841.
Isaac, Mark. An index of creationist claims. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html.
Isaac, Randy. Sept 2005. From gaps to gods. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 57, (3): 230-4.
———. June 2007. Assessing the RATE project. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (2): 143-146.
———. 1996. Chronology of the fall. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48, : 34-42.
Johnson, Timothy R., and Karl Giberson. Dec 2002. The teaching of evolution in the public school: A case study analysis. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (4): 242-248.
Kline, Meredith. 1996. Space and time in the genesis cosmogony. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48, (1): 2-15.
Krienke, Karl. Dec 1992. Theodicy and evolution. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44, (4): 255-257.
Lamoureux, Denis. 2008. Evolutionary creation : A christian approach to evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
———. 2008. Lessons from the heavens: On scripture, science and inerrancy. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (1): 4-15.
———. Evolutionary creationism. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm.
Leslie, John. 1989. Universes. London ; New York: Routledge.
Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers. 2003. When science & christianity meet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Livingstone, David N. 2008. Adam's ancestors : Race, religion, and the politics of human origins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
———. 1987. Darwin's forgotten defenders : The encounter between evangelical theology and evolutionary thought. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Edinburgh, Scotland: W.B. Eerdmans; Scottish Academic Press.
Long, V. Philips, Gordon J. Wenham, and David W. Baker. 2002. Windows into old testament history : Evidence, argument, and the crisis of "biblical israel". Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge, U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Marsden, George M. 1987. Reforming fundamentalism : Fuller seminary and the new evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
———. 1980. Fundamentalism and american culture : The shaping of twentieth century evangelicalism, 1870-1925. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marsden, George M., Mark A. Noll, Joel A. Carpenter, Roger Lundin, Nathan O. Hatch, and Wheaton College . Authors. 1984. Evangelicalism and modern america. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
McGrath, Alister E. 2008. The open secret : A new vision for natural theology. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.
———. 2005. Dawkins' god : Genes, memes, and the meaning of life. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.
———. 2002. The future of christianity. Blackwell manifestos. Oxford ; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
———. Has science eliminated god? in CiS-St Edmund's Online Lectures [database online]. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/index.html.
———. Has science killed god? (faraday paper #9). in Faraday Institute for Science and Religion [database online]. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%209%20McGrath_EN.pdf.
———. Isn't science more rational than faith? in Evangelical Alliance of the UK [database online]. [cited November 10 2009]. Available from http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/bq18.cfm?renderforprint=1.
McIntyre, J. A. Sept. 2002. The historical adam. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (3): 150-7.
———. June 2006. The real adam and original sin. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (2): 90-8.
McLaren, Brian D. 2003. The story we find ourselves in : Further adventures of a new kind of christian. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Menninga, Clarence. Sept 1988. Creation, time, and "apparent age". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40, (3): 160-2.
———. Dec 1999. Disease and dying in the fossil record. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 51, (4): 226-230.
Miller, Roman. Mar 2007. Do we debate or dialogue issues of science and faith? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (1): 1-2.
Miller, Keith B. September 1993. Theological implications of an evolving creation. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45, (3): 150-160.
———. June 2002. The similarity of theory testing in the historical and “Hard” sciences. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (2): 119-122.
———. 2003. Common descent, transitional forms, and the fossil record. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 152-181. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
———. 2003. Perspectives on an evolving creation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Miller, Keith B., and David Campbell. 2003. The "cambrian explosion": A challenge to evolutionary theory? In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 182-204. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding darwin's god : A scientist's search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books.
Morris, Simon Conway. 2006. The boyle lecture 2005: Darwin's compass: How evolution discovers the song of creation. Science and Christian Belief 18, (1): 5-22.
Moshier, Stephen O., Dean Arnold, Larry L. Funck, Raymond Lewis, Albert J. Smith, John H. Walton, and William Wharton. Dec 2007. Theories of origins: A multi- and interdisciplinary course for undergraduates at wheaton college. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (4): 289-296.
Murphy, George L. March 2006. Reading god's two books. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (1): 64-7.
———. March 2001. Chiasmic cosmology and creation's functional integrity. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, (1): 7-13.
———. March 1986. A theological argument for evolution. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38, (1): 19-26.
———. June 2006. Roads to paradise and perdition: Christ, evolution, and original sin. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (2): 109-118.
———. Dec 2008. Chiasmic cosmology and atonement. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (4): 214-224.
———. 2005. Pulpit science fiction. Ohio: CSS Publishing Company Inc.
———. 2003. Christology, evolution, and the cross. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 370-389. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
———. 2003. The cosmos in the light of the cross. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International.
———. 1998. The theology of the cross and god's work in the world. Zygon 33, (2): 221-31.
Murphy, Nancey C. 2006. Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies?. Current issues in theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996. Beyond liberalism and fundamentalism : How modern and postmodern philosophy set the theological agenda. Rockwell lecture series. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International.
Murphy, Nancey C., and Carl S. Helrich. 2002. Religion and science : God, evolution and the soul by nancey murphy : Proceedings of the goshen conference on religion and science. Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press.
Noll, Mark A. 1994. The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.
———. 1992. A history of christianity in the united states and canada. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
———. 1986. Between faith and criticism : Evangelicals, scholarship, and the bible in america. Confessional perspectives series. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Numbers, Ronald L. 2006. The creationists : From scientific creationism to intelligent design. Expand ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Peters, Ted, and Martin Hewlett. 2006. Can you believe in god and evolution? : A guide for the perplexed. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
———. 2003. Evolution from creation to new creation : Conflict, conversation , and convergence. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Plantinga, Alvin. Sept 1997. Methodological naturalism. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49, (3): 143-154.
———. 1977. God, freedom, and evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Polkinghorne, J. C. 2006; 1988. Science and creation : The search for understanding. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.
———. Creation, evil, and time. in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion: Summer 2006 Lecture Series [database online]. 2006Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Summer%20Course%201/045_John_Polkinghorne3.mp3.
———. 2004. Science and the trinity : The christian encounter with reality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 2002. The god of hope and the end of the world. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
———. 2000. Faith, science and understanding. London: Spck.
———. 1998. Science and theology : An introduction. London; Minneapolis, Minn.: Spck; Fortress Press.
———. 1994. Science and christian belief: Theological reflections of a bottom-up thinker. Gifford lectures for 1993-4. London: Spck.
———. 1989. Science and providence : God's interaction with the world. London: Spck.
———. The future of the science-religion debate. in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion [database online]. Available from http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR173%20John%20Polkinghorne.mp3.
Poole, Michael. 2002. Explaining or explaining away? Science and Christian Belief 14, (2): 123-142.
Poole, Michael, and Gordon J. Wenham. 1987. Creation or evolution : A false antithesis?. Latimer studies. Vol. 23-24. Oxford: Latimer House.
Roberts, Michael. 2008. Evangelicals and science. Greenwood guides to science and religion. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
———. 2007. Genesis chapter 1 and geological time from hugo grotius and marin mersenne to william conybeare and thomas chalmers (1620–1825). Geological Society, London, Special Publications 273, : 39-49.
Rogers, Jack Bartlett, and Donald K. McKim. 1979. The authority and interpretation of the bible : An historical approach. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Rusbult, Craig. Naturalism and NATURALISM (two meanings: Descriptive and atheistic). in ASA [database online]. [cited January 2007]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/naturalism.htm.
Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1978. The roots of fundamentalism ; british and american millenarianism, 1800-1930. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
Sarna, Nahum M. 1967. Understanding genesis. The heritage of biblical israel. Vol. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Schneider, Robert. Essays on science and faith: Perspectives on christianity and science. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essays.asp.
Seely, Paul. March 2008. Genesis 1–11 in the light of its second millennial worldview: A response to carol Hill’s worldview alternative. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (1): 44-47.
———. 2001. The date of the tower of babel and some theological implications. Westminster Theological Journal 63, : 15-38.
———. 1997. The geographical meaning of "earth" and "seas" in genesis 1: 10. Westminster Theological Journal 59, : 231-55.
———. 1991. The firmament and the water above. part I: The meaning of raqia in gen 1: 6-8. Westminster Theological Journal 53, : 241-61.
Shults, F. LeRon. 2008. Christology and science. Ashgate science and religion series. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Singh, Simon. 2004. Big bang : The origin of the universe. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Fourth Estate.
Stackhouse, John Gordon. 2007. Defining evangelical. Church and Faith Trends 1, (1): 1-5, http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V01I01/Defining_Evangelical.pdf.
———. 1998. Can god be trusted? : Faith and the challenge of evil. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1993. Canadian evangelicalism in the twentieth century : An introduction to its character. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Swinburne, Richard. 2003. The resurrection of god incarnate. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
Theobald, Douglas. 29+ evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. in Talk Origins [database online]. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc.
Thorson, Walter. March 2002. Legitimacy and scope of “Naturalism” in science - part 1: Theological basis for "naturalistic" science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (1): 2-11.
———. March 2002. Legitimacy and scope of “Naturalism” in science - part II:Scope for new scientific paradigms. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (1): 12-21.
VanTil, Howard. 2003. Is the universe capable of evolving? In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 313-334. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Waltke, Bruce K. Barriers to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process. in Biologos [database online]. [cited October 20 2009]. Available from http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Waltke_scholarly_essay.pdf.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. 2007. An old testament theology : An exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Walton, John H. 2009. The lost world of genesis one : Ancient cosmology and the origins debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.
Wenham, Gordon J. Interpreting genesis 1-11. in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion [database online]. 2009Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/short%20course%203/Gordon%20Wenham.mp3.
Wenham, Gordon J. 1990. Original sin in genesis 1-11. The Churchman 104, (4).
———. 1989. The place of biblical criticism in theological study. Themelios: 84-9.
———. 1987. Genesis 1-15. Word biblical commentary. Vol. 1. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books.
Wiens, Roger. Radiometric dating: A christian perspective. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html.
Wigner, Eugene. 1960. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, (1): 1-14.
Wilcox, David L. March 2004. Establishing adam: Recent evidences for a late date adam. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, (1): 49-54.
———. 2004. God and evolution : A faith-based understanding. 1st ed. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press.
———. 2003. Finding adam: The genetics of human origins. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 234-253. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Wilkins, John. Evolution and chance. in Talk Origins [database online]. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html.
Wright, N. T. Can a scientist believe the resurrection? in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion [database online]. [cited December 2008]. Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/NTWright.mp3.
Wright, N. T. 2003. The resurrection of the son of god. Christian origins and the question of god. Vol. 3. London: Spck.
Young, D. A. 1995. The antiquity and the unity of the human race revisited. Christian Scholar's Review 24, : 380-96.