New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
Thursday, March 18, 2010
| Opinion: Faith versus science? |
|
|
| By Marv Knox | ||
| Wednesday, February 18, 2009 | ||
|
The whole world seems to be thinking about the relationship of science and religious faith this week, as we mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. (In fact, the Baptist Standard and our New Voice Media partners recently prepared an entire package of articles on Darwin, evolution and the varieties of creationism, which you can read on this website.) Nothing this side of Galileo has inflamed so many Christians as Darwin's evolutionary tome, On the Origin of Species. Still, I must confess: I just don't "get" the fight between religion and science or faith and reason. Missing the point Oh, I understand the arguments. Some Christians feel threatened by the scientific assertion that the world came to be as it is through natural selection and an infinite number of mutations. On the other side, some scientists feel Christians who disagree with them willfully ignore plain evidence of observation. (I know those are gross oversimplifications, but I'm just pointing to the parameters. This is a column, not a book.) It's just that the folks who argue most stridently miss the point -- not only of their adversaries' purpose, but of their own. The faith/reason or religion/science debate would go away if people simply acknowledged the role of each. God & science in creation Take creation -- please. The Bible's account in the Book of Genesis seeks to explain the "Who?" and "why?" of creation. In the beginning, God launched the process that resulted in humanity because God desired a loving, reciprocal relationship with other sentient beings. Genesis offers two accounts of creation (in the first two chapters) that do not specifically harmonize with each other, much less current approaches to science and history. But they reinforce the Who and why of creation. Science, on the other hand, seeks to explain the "what?" and the "how?" Darwin proposed a model for explaining how the species as we currently find them came to be. Both before and certainly ever since, scientists have been proposing and testing hypotheses to demonstrate the chemical and biological processes that bring them along. Two purposes So, religion and science have two different purposes. No amount of logic must deduce they oppose each other. They're asking different questions, which lead to different answers, but not necessarily contradictory answers. Religion errs when it seeks to dictate the range of answers science can discover. Science errs when it claims all its answers are final, and nothing -- or, more specifically, no One -- lies behind them. I've been listening to this debate my whole life, and I've decided I'm a Christian who's comfortable with theistic evolution. The Bible -- my authoritative guide for faith and practice -- tells me God is the Who behind creation and God's love is the why. Science seeks to explain how life developed on Earth through the millennia. Annoyed and/or embarrassed Sometimes, atheistic evolutionists annoy me. They overstep their bounds, confident that because they feel they have good answers for the what and how of creation, they do not need a Who or why. But more than annoy me, they make me sad. For when they close their minds to the possibilities outside their sphere, they also close their hearts to a relationship with the God of love, Who has transformed my life and filled it with meaning and purpose. I feel sorry for them. Almost always, however, hard-line creationists embarrass me. I guess it's because we're fellow believers, part of the same family. Your kinfolk can humiliate you far more intently than neighbors and people you don't even know. Their arrogance is bad enough, but their lack of faith is worse. They think they've figured out how God did creation, and they deny the possibility of any other process. Don't you see the irony? They become the ones who would limit God. And worse still, their stridency, anger and mean-spiritedness gives God a bad name and drives unbelievers away. That never was God's divine plan for creation. -30- Marv Knox is editor of the Texas Baptist Standard. This column is adapted from a Feb. 12 entry on his blog, FaithWorks. Related ABP stories: Two centuries after his birth, Darwin still controversial Intelligent design renews debate between science and religion Scientific organizations, court: ‘intelligent design’ isn’t science Evolution Sunday says dichotomy between faith and science is false 'Young-earth' creationists value literal reading of God’s word over human intellect                 Comments (19)
 One Vote in Favor
written by Sparklingred, February 19, 2009
I agree with Mr. Knox. The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally - if it were it wouldn't be 90% stories. Looking at alternate interpretations of the text is not equal to "denying" the Bible's message, as Ken would have it. The Bible is not interpreted the same by any two Christians. Even so-called literalists disagree with each other. Look at the verse that states "the sun stood still in the sky". That is just one example of a descriptive phrase that is not meant to be taken literally, as we know, unless anyone still subscribes to the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. We shouldn't be afraid of non-literal interpretations. There's truth that goes much deeper than surface readings.
sparklingred
written by Ken, February 19, 2009
The Bible is not to be taken "literally"? Does this mean that homosexuality is not "literally" a sin? Does this mean that Jesus is not "literally" the only way to God? Does this mean that He did not "literally" rise from the dead? Did He not "literally" die for our sins on the cross?
I don't deny that the Bible contains figures of speech, such as when Jesus said, "I am the door." But figurative language is generally obvious. My point is, you're treading on dangerous ground when you start saying the Bible shouldn't be taken "literally." Once you take that approach, where do you stop? I notice you did not answer that question. myth of Darwinism
written by Dr. J, February 19, 2009
Darwinism is a myth. There is no evidence to support it. The great discoveries in support of Darwinism have ended up begin proven to be hoaxes. In Ann Coulter's book, Godless, there is an excellent, factual chapter regarding the Darwinism hoax. Ms. Coulter truthfully stated, "The only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they no proof of (1).
I don't know how God created the life. I know He did. I just don't think a blind, factless faith in Darwinism is the answer. Continuing Argument
written by mcskinny, February 20, 2009
Use of the word literal in reference to the Bible always begins an argument. Even those who claim every story, every law, every verse is to be taken literally back pedal when the book of Deuteronomy is read.
So the point is quickly made that some of the scriptures are literal and some point to principles. Myself I find it very interesting that thousands of years before Galileo, and even thousands of years before written word came about, God inspired man to begin telling the story of creation. A story which parallels what science understands to date of the creation of this planet. First there was nothing, then a chaotic form, then water, then land, then vegetation, then fish, birds, animals and lastly man. Darwinism has many unanswered questions and unproven theories about life. Scientific discoveries continue to point both the believer and the atheist to a god of creation if they will but open their minds. Christians know the true God is a god of love. We close the door to some non-believers when we argue science versus faith. Genesis 1 proves to me that science and faith are not so far apart as some on both sides would like us to believe. Mac mcskinny
written by Ken, February 20, 2009
I don't disagree with most of what you said. However, I fail to see how we "close the door to unbelievers when we argue science versus faith." Many unbelievers see a real contradiction between science and faith. It's a false contradiction (I think we all agree on that much), but they see it nonetheless. We certainly aren't going to reach them if we ignore their objections.
Unfortunately, many Christians seem to think we can surrender the book of Genesis without doing any harm to the message of the gospel. That simply is not so, and unbelievers know it. They can readily see the fallacy of a "pick and choose" approach to Scripture. If you take away the book of Genesis, the whole gospel message unravels. The evolutionists have done far more damage to the church's witness than the creationists. Since evolution is so rife with logical and scientific fallacies, I don't see why so many Christians feel compelled to "cave in" on that point. Literal Block
written by mcskinny, February 20, 2009
Ken, All believers pick and choose scripture. Literalist deny they do, but denial does not make it so. Many 'literalist's wives wear gold, pearls, expensive dresses or have her hair 'done up' for church. Many literalists make or take out loans longer that 6 years. No one I know believes that we must put to death anyone (male and female) caught in adultery. Literal application of the account of creation in Genesis closes the door to faith for many scientific minds. There are narrow minded people on both sides of this issue. I know my argument will not instantly change any one's narrow mindedness, but maybe it will plant a seed in a fertile mind. Mac
mcskinny
written by Ken, February 21, 2009
With all due respect, your citing of those Old Testament passages is little other than red herring. I know of very few Christians, conservative or liberal, who think we are still under the law. The question is, are the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be understood as actual history? If they are not, then what are they? Allegory? Myth?
Jesus and Paul clearly believed that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literal history. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest. If they were wrong about Genesis, were they wrong about other things, too? As I said, if you take away the book of Genesis, the whole message of Scripture unravels. So-called "fundamentalists" know that, and so do unbelievers. Liberal Christians are the only ones who don't seem to get it. This brings me back to my original question: how do you decide which parts of the Bible you will accept as true and which parts you will not? It's a very fair question, and you still haven't answered it. By the way, if you are unwilling to consider the implications of what you are saying, then I hardly think you have any business calling anyone "narrow-minded." Changes or Not?
written by mcskinny, February 22, 2009
Ken,
I have considered with an open mind, but from the position of faith in a supreme being, the literal words of Genesis. God created the universe and all that is in it in a period of 144 hours and nothing in has changed from the way it was created. I have considered with an open mind many of the claims of science and evolutionists, but from the position of faith in a supreme being. Only when I realized the main difference was a measurement which means a lot to man and nothing to God, was I able to understand that it is not an either/or proposition. Actually I was studying for a presentation on Genesis versus science in formation of the universe for a Sunday School assignment. It was very troubling to me. While driving down a long stretch of West Texas highway it was like a voice told me "The two accounts were parallel!". I have, with an open mind, continued to study and think about this relationship between what Genesis says and what science continues to discover for over 40 years. I have found no reason to return to thinking the universe was created in 144 hours, nor do I see any evidence to believe that all life came from a single accidental gathering of chemicals which evolved into every life form. I see evidence of a creator, a long period of time, and some changes in life forms within boundaries of species. Is it possible to not take every word of the scripture as literal and still believe in Jesus as the Christ? I believe so, yes. Mac, signing off and ending my comments. mcskinny
written by Ken, February 23, 2009
You still haven't answered my question. Jesus and Paul clearly believed Genesis was literal history. If they were wrong about that, how do you know they weren't wrong about other things? When you start denying the truth of part of the Bible, where do you stop? I've asked you that question at least twice. You've danced all around it, but you still haven't given me an answer. That pretty much makes my point.
Jesus and Paul
written by mcskinny, February 24, 2009
Jesus knew! Jesus "knew" so much more than the human mind of that day or even today can accept or begin to understand. So to claim to know that Jesus believed is an interesting concept.
Paul seemed to believe Jesus would return in his lifetime. Evidently he had preached this to the church at Thessalonica. Not to try to take anything away from Paul, but it seems to me that some his beliefs changed or softened just a little and he grew older and continued his close walk with God. Until about the time of Galileo all church leaders believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and this belief was based on their literal interpretation of the scripture. My concern and point is that insisting on a literal interpretation can keep some from being able to accept any of our message of the existence God, much less the love of God for all creation. With that, I am through and will not even check back on this thread. Mac mcskinny, you still haven't answered my question.
written by Ken, February 24, 2009
Okay, "Jesus knew." Are you saying He "knew" the book of Genesis is literally true? Then why are you contradicting Him? Or are you saying that He knew the book of Genesis was not literal history? If such is the case, then why did He mislead people into believing He did? You're dodging the issue again.
You also did not answer my question about Paul. You claim he changed his beliefs as he grew older? So you believe he just wrote his own opinions, and was not directed by the Holy Spirit? Once again, you're dodging my question. If his beliefs were so inconsistent (as you claim), how can you trust anything he said? You say, "insisting on a literal interpretation can keep some from being able to accept any of our message...." It's not a question of "interpretation"; it's a question of what is true. As I said, if you deny the book of Genesis, the whole message of the gospel unravels. Unbelievers understand that, and so do so-called "fundamentalists." Liberal Christians seem to be the only ones who don't get it. Hi Ken
written by Dr. J, February 24, 2009
Ken:
I do not believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literally true. Does that make me less of a Christian? I don't think so. Doesn't it make one wonder just a little when you know that there is a flood story in Gilgamesh Epic- written prior to the Bible. In Jesus time, most of His converts could not even read. They did not even have the number 0. So, to say the Gospel unravels if you do not believe in literal interpretation places more emphasis in the interpretation of Scripture than in the power of the Gospel. Before the 20th century there were few Bibles, yet many came to Christ. In the first 3 centuries there were no Bibles, yet the power of the spoken Gospel transformed the world for eternity. Sure, the Scripture is important to Christian faith and moving from milk to solid food. But the power of the Gospel is much greater than one's interpretation. I know many great Christians who are Catholic. Are they less Christian because their Scripture includes writings not in our Bibles? I am not worried to stand before Christ my sins covered by His shed blood- and admit to Him I did not believe in a literal interpretation of 11 chapters in Genesis. Stop listening to dividers like Moran. Listen with you heart to the real Gospel. We Christians have a huge task which is getting larger everyday. We need to work together. Who cares whether you literally or figurative interpret Scripture? Most important- How do I live my life under the Lord's leadership. Dr. J
written by Ken, February 24, 2009
First of all, I'll thank you not to insult my intelligence with your condescending remarks. I am a seminary-trained Baptist minister, and Roger Moran (who happens to be a friend of mine) most certainly does not do my thinking for me. I don't agree with Roger on everything, but I do agree with him when he is right. If you don't like that, that is your problem.
Jesus clearly acknowledged the first eleven chapters of Genesis as literal history. Do you know more than He did? Do you think He lied? Did He not know what He was talking about? If such is the case, how can you be sure He was really the Son of God? If the Bible is so flawed, how can you be sure your sins are covered by the blood of Jesus? You tried this tactic earlier when we debated the issue of women's ordination. You claimed you are not influenced by societal trends, but you were not willing to extend that same credit to the apostle Paul. I find that attitude most arrogant. I also find it very arrogant for you to assume that Roger Moran or anyone else does my thinking for me. I never said anyone's salvation depends on whether they believe in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. That's just another red herring. I did ask how one determines which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are not. Thus far, no one has answered that question. If you have an answer, I will be glad to hear it. Don't Confuse Science with Reason
written by oeytg, February 24, 2009
The main problem that Merv Knox's analysis is that he confuses Science with Reason. He takes a post-Kantian view that faith deals with the nonrational.
It would be better to distinguish between three disciplines: science, philosophy and faith, and not confuse the three. Science, strictly speaking, cannot "prove" evolution. Evolution should also be distinguished as microevolution and macroevolution. When Christians assert that evolution is false, they generally refer to macroevolution. The view that frogs can grow longer leges, or fish can change skin color, are examples of microevolution. I don't think many persons deny that microevolution occurs. The view that a dog could evolve into a cat, or have a common ancestor, is macroevolution. There is no evidence that it occurs. It is simply a philosophical position beyond science, which is called naturalism. I think it is better to follow the Bible, which says that God creates living creatures "according to their kind"--macroevolution does not exist, nor can it be proven to exist by the fossil record. On the otherhand, I disagree with the concept of "Creation Science." According to my reading of creation scientists, they use a pre-modern understanding of science that existed up until the time of Thomas Aquinas. Scientia or Greek Episteme referred to certain knowledge of God and the universe. William Ockham on the other hand, denied that theology is a science. This led the way to the modern understanding of science in Francis Bacon, which is that it is the study of observal natural phenomena which involves the testing of hypotheses. It would be better to assert Christian philosophy as opposed to naturalism. The belief in God as Creator is reasonable, but not strictly demonstrable. I agree with Charles Hodge's criticism of Darwin. Darwin took the "nominalism" of William Ockham too far, by denying that all species or kinds exist in a fixed manner established by God. Also Darwinism denies that the universe has a purpose. By defending the view of "theistic evolution," I think Merv Knox has denied a statement in the 1925 and 1963 Southern Baptist confession which is still held by Texas Baptists, "Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation." response to Ken
written by Dr. J, February 26, 2009
I did not mean to suggest Moran does your thinking. Anyway, you have not answered my questions: Am I a lesser Christian because I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? If not, then I don't understand why people who believe in a literal interpretation insist on being divisive, cutting off fellowship with other Christians. I don't get it. I am perfectly happy for you to interpret Scripture anyway you want. Also, I think all of Scripture is true, infallible and contains the word of God. That said, I cannot reject the vast amount of scholarship conducted by many wonderful, truth-seeking, theologians.
As far as creation goes. Our Lord is timeless. He sees all of man's history as if it is current. In Him time does not exist. He views creation at the same time He views you and me today. I think the Lord used terms in Scripture that we would understand. I am most thankful and humbled by this. Shoot, the Lord may have created it all in 7 seconds or 7 million years. I just think the Lord who said one day is a thousand years was trying to help us understand that He created us in His image. Who cares the length of time? Our God is timeless. Dr. J
written by Ken, February 27, 2009
My point is not whether you are less of a Christian. Who can know the human heart? My point is, your brand of theology is untenable. If you start denying the truth of one part of Scripture, where do you stop? You have not yet answered that question.
This goes far beyond whether the earth was created in six days. For instance, were Adam and Eve real people? Jesus believed they were, and so did Paul. Were they wrong? If they were not real people, does this mean humans are not made in the image of God? Does this mean we really do not have a sinful nature? What does this do to our doctrine of salvation? If Jesus was wrong about Adam and Eve, was He wrong about other things as well? Was He wrong about being the Son of God? You may try to dismiss this as a "slippery slope" argument, but history is against you on this one. When a church or denomination denies the book of Genesis, it is only a matter of time before they deny other parts of the Bible. I defy you to show me one instance where that has not been the case. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is a perfect case in point. You claimed you "cannot reject the vast amount of scholarship conducted by many wonderful, truth-seeking, theologians." Why? Much of their work, such as the JEDP hypothesis, has been thoroughly discredited. Once again I ask this question: How do you determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not? I have asked that question numerous times, and everyone - including yourself - has dodged it. If you do not give me an answer this time, I am going to rest my case. P.S. to Dr. J
written by Ken, February 27, 2009
You asked this question earlier: "Who cares whether you literally or figurative interpret Scripture? Most important- How do I live my life under the Lord's leadership."
The fact is, how you interpret Scripture plays a very large part in determining how you live your life. Many (so-called) Christians reject the Bible's teachings on homosexuality, and thus they see nothing wrong with the lifestyle. Likewise, if someone rejects the Bible's prohibition on fornication and adultery, they are likely to live their lives accordingly. In the same way, how you live your life often determines how you interpret Scripture. I firmly believe the reason so many people reject the Bible is because they do not want to live by its teachings. Of course, this is one of those "chicken or the egg" questions. Have people become so immoral because people have rejected God's Word, or have people rejected God's Word because they've become so immoral? Personally, I think it's a combination of both. My point is, it does matter how you interpret Scripture. When you dismiss part of Scripture as untrue, where do you stop? Hmm, I agree. written by robber, March 05, 2009
I don't hesitate to blast op-eds that I find faulty, so it would be wrong to not comment when I read one that I like. This is exactly the way I see this "argument." Satan puts it in our heads that we have something to fear from the other side, but we don't. I know of no direct contradiction between the two "sides." The only one that wants us to be afraid and argue about it is the evil one.
Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
|
||
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Baptists
- BGCT takes action against church suspected of affirming gays
- Central Seminary students journey to Myanmar as pilgrims
- Va. Baptist educator Terry Maples named CBF field rep for Tennessee
- Baptist History and Heritage Society hires Bruce Gourley as new leader
- Great Commission Task Force head surprised at backlash to report
Nation
- Federal appeals court says Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional
- Faith leaders say abortion provisions adequate in health-care bill
- Supreme Court accepts case testing limits of free speech
- In Texas, Religious Right loses fight with national curriculum implications
- Supreme Court declines Okla. county’s attempt to display 10 Commandments
World
| |
Knox has it backward. Evolutionists are the narrow-minded ones. The minute anyone raises the slightest challenge to their precious evolutionary theory, they cover their ears and scream, "Heresy." Then they have the unmitigated gall to label anyone who disagrees with them as "narrow-minded" and "arrogant." Furthermore, I have never met any creationist who is half as mean-spirited as the average evolutionist. It seems to me that Mr. Knox ought to practice what he preaches.
Time and again, people tell me that the Bible is not a science book. That's true enough, but when you start denying one part of Scripture, where do you stop? I've never met one person who can give a sufficient answer to that question. Until they do give me an answer, I will continue to trust the Word of God rather than highly-debatable scientific hypotheses.