New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Seminar equips clergy, laypeople to talk about faith, science
 
Seminar equips clergy, laypeople to talk about faith, science Print E-mail
By Carrie Joynton   
Monday, February 01, 2010

AUSTIN, Texas (ABP) -- Baylor University theology professor Barry Harvey took just two texts to a church's recent seminar on reconciling faith and science: the Bible and Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

“Far too often, [discussing faith and science] generates heat rather than light,” Harvey said, introducing the all-day conference, called “Science and Faith: Breaking Down the Wall,” at First Baptist Church of Austin, Texas.

Retired military chaplain Bob Campbell (left) and John George, retired professor of entomology, share testimonies about their experiences interacting with faith and science. (PHOTOS/Carrie Joynton)

Harvey joined colleagues Phyllis Tippit, lecturer in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core, and Gerald Cleaver, associate professor of physics at Baylor, as speakers for the Jan. 23 event for clergy and laypeople alike, sponsored by the Baylor University Center for Ministry Effectiveness and Educational Leadership.

The seminar, featuring three lectures and plenty of participant discussion, addressed the conflict many Christians feel when discussing faith and science -- if the conversation happens at all.

“The subject of faith and science is a very sensitive topic for a lot of good Christian people,” said Don Schmeltekopf, director of Baylor’s Center for Ministry Effectiveness and Educational Leadership. “When you start talking about the universe being 13.7 billion years old, many people respond: ‘What are you talking about? I don’t read my Bible that way.’”

“It gets so divisive,” said Shelley Hargrove, a seminar participant and member of the Austin church, commenting on discussions of Christianity and science.

Harvey opened the seminar with a lecture titled: “What’s God Got to Do With It? Why Theology and the Physical Sciences Are Not In (Epistemic) Competition.”

“What does it mean to say we know something?” Harvey asked.

Literal interpretations -- specifically of biblical texts -- invoke contemporary conventions and define what’s important in text, sometimes regardless of the author’s original intent, he explained. With regular references to God’s ultimate sovereignty, Harvey cautioned against dogmatism and the notion that a specific kind of knowledge can “trump” all others, in either faith or science.

Participants Jack Woods and Ryan Arnold at the seminar, “Science and Faith: Breaking Down the Wall,” discuss “pressure points” in Christian conversation about faith and science.

“It is not an insult to say that science cannot answer every question,” he said. “God sustains all things -- both the things themselves, and the processes therein.”

Next, the day’s conversation turned to the physical sciences. In his lecture, “Faith and the New Cosmology,” physicist Gerald Cleaver spanned topics ranging from ancient paradigms of creation, to cosmology, string theory and the possibility of multiple universes or “multiverses.” Human knowledge of the universe’s fundamental features has skyrocketed over the past century, Cleaver noted, but knowledge doesn’t equate to understanding.

“Science asks and tries to answer the ‘how’ questions,” Cleaver said. “Transcendent revelation addresses the ‘why’ through Scripture and faith.”

In her lecture, “Does Life Have A History?” Phyllis Tippit used plate tectonics as an illustration of purposeful, constant change in the physical world.

As geologic collision recycles carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, plate tectonics is “part of a system that makes this world a place to live,” Tippit observed.

Using an analogy of God as gardener, Tippit presented her thesis that the theory of evolution supports -- rather than contradicts -- God’s presence in the universe. Evolution, she said, is simply “organized change through time.”

“We have a God who works, who shapes ... constantly working with his creation. Isn’t that kind of what we see when we look at evolution?” Tippet said.

Roger Paynter, the church's pastor, hoped the seminar's frank discussion offered hope for attention to a long-ignored need in churches. Many members of his congregation have been hurt by being told they couldn’t pursue both faith and science, he said.

“I think people are hungry to be treated as if they have a brain,” Paynter said. “It doesn’t threaten our faith, it deepens our faith.”

Phyllis Tippit, Gerald Cleaver and Barry Harvey, all from Baylor University, respond to questions during a panel discussion at the seminar, “Science and Faith: Breaking Down the Wall."

The seminar wasn’t a one-time event. Through Baylor’s sponsorship, Schmeltekopf hopes to develop it into a series presented in several churches throughout Texas.

His main hurdle will be finding churches receptive to these discussions, he noted.

“There are lots of Baptist churches for which the subject would be too controversial,” he said.

But Schmeltekopf insists the relationship between science and faith is a pertinent and necessary issue for Baptists to consider.

“The church’s witness to the world needs to include our conversation with the scientific community, and not ignore it,” he urged. “We are negligent to ignore this aspect of life. It’s just irresponsible.”

During group discussions prior to the lectures, participants listed major “pressure points” they considered important to the day’s conversation. Some wanted to develop a “common language” and a “framework for conversation” between the disciplines. Others wondered how to hold to a belief in biblical inerrancy while recognizing scientific support for alternate interpretations of the text.

Teachers face special circumstances, many participants noted -- because they answer not only to peers, but also to parents and administrators for how they approach topics like evolution in the classroom.

In a panel discussion at the end of the seminar, Harvey offered advice for tempering antagonism over questions of faith and science.

“We should care what the other person thinks. We should struggle together to find the truth,” Harvey said.

Tippit suggested participants begin conversations in their own congregations by starting book clubs featuring literature that raises controversial -- but important -- issues in faith and science.

At First Baptist, Paynter promotes having these discussions in Sunday school, in an “environment of permission for people to ask the tough questions, and not have simplistic answers.”

“It takes tremendous grace to be in dialogue,” he said. “You have to be willing to disagree, to learn.”

The next seminar in this series will be held at Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas on April 10.

-30-

Carrie Joynton is a freelance writer in San Antonio and a former Texas Baptist communications intern.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by KT2005, February 01, 2010
I wish "Answers In Genesis" would have been invited to participate. Their worldview is a valid one and would have enriched the conversation.
No Compromise With Darwin
written by Mark Osgatharp, February 01, 2010
Obviously, this is just another stale attempt to persuade Baptists to accept and compromise with Darwinism. True Baptists have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from these feigned offers of "dialogue" with the Bible deniers.

No Baptist is opposed to science. We are opposed to the "science falsely so called" which denies the Biblical record of God's creation. Evolution is no science. It is the greatest fairy tail that was ever foisted on humanity.

The best thing the Southern Baptists could do is dump Baylor, and all the other seed beds of modernist heresy, and recognize that there can never be any working relationship between the Lord's churches and a secular university.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
utter confusion
written by Xenophon, February 01, 2010
Phyllis Tippit summarized the confusion many people, even if well-educated, bring to these discussions. Above she is quoted as presenting the following line of argument:

"Using an analogy of God as gardener, Tippit presented her thesis that the theory of evolution supports -- rather than contradicts -- God’s presence in the universe. Evolution, she said, is simply “organized change through time.”

“We have a God who works, who shapes ... constantly working with his creation. Isn’t that kind of what we see when we look at evolution?” Tippet said. "

What Darwin is saying is exactly the opposite of Ms. Tippit's characterization of evolution. According to Darwin's analysis, there is no overarching purpose or design to anything. Following the ancient Greek Atomists, Darwin argued that only random interactions have shaped the unfolding of life in the universe. As Darwin contemplated the logical consequences of his speculations, the non-theistic implications became more and more obvious to him, viz. his conception of evolution is incompatible with an omnipotent God. Darwin was correct. There is no way to reconcile these radically different metaphysical perspectives--everything is random versus everything is designed for a purpose.

The Christian paradigm is inherently teleological as were Plato and Aristotle's understanding of reality. Teleology was opposed by Democritus and his followers such as Lucretius who were the founders of the Atomist school of thought. Isaac Newton, who was an intelligent design theorist, borrowed from the Atomists to provide conceptual structure to his physics. This was a mistake as some of his contemporaries pointed out. Atomism is inconsistent with both divine purpose and intelligence as well as God's omnipotence since random change is central to the Atomist view. One could say that things we observe seem random to us but may not be to God. The problem with that line is that the Atomists and Darwin are not making a knowledge claim here. Rather they are saying that these processes are intrinsically random. Such understandings are, in principle, at odds with teleological metaphysical accounts that see everything as intrinsically purposive.

Finally, I would agree on two fronts with the commentators mentioned in the article. First is that we should discuss these matters fully. I also agree that our differences are not primarily epistemological (theories of knowledge) but I would argue, as I have just above, that our differences are primarily metaphysical.
Evolution is not biblical
written by theBIBLICALdude, February 26, 2010
Look, you either believe in the account in Genesis on how the earth was made. 6 literal 24 hour days or you don't. The two do not mix and never will.

http://battleblog.proverbs13thirteen.com/2010/02/16/evolution-and-the-church-of-england-supporting-satans-plan.aspx

http://battleblog.proverbs13thirteen.com/2009/12/23/evolution-and-rome.aspx

There is no middle ground, and no way to mend the two as both are contradictions to the other and in God's Word wins this fight. I can care less how many scientist say this or that. You either believe in God's creation or not.


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
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.