| Theologian-scientist says there are pathways between two disciplines |
|
|
| By Bob Perkins Jr. | |||
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 | |||
|
ATLANTA (ABP) -- There are paths between science and theology, and both can find value in interaction, noted author and professor of science and theology Robert Russell told an audience at Mercer University's McAfee School of Theology Sept. 15.
Russell, founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences and a professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif., delivered McAfee's second annual D. Perry and Betty Ginn Lecture on Christian Faith and Modern Science. He used his address to take on some common historical misconceptions about the roles of science, philosophy and religion. “Philosophy mediates between theology and science,” Russell said. “Science doesn’t prove God, but it does show that life is very much at home in this universe. This is not a proof of God, but an invitation to take the universe and give it a sense of purpose and value in a way that the science I grew up with did not. “It isn’t as much of a leap to say that God created the universe as it is to say there are an infinite number of universes out there,” he said. “It tends to be unanswerable because it’s beyond the laws of science and observation.” Russell has spent his career studying these interactions. An ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, he is a member of the Society of Ordained Scientists and has written or edited numerous books on science and theology. He holds a Ph.D. in experimental physics from the University of California, Santa Cruz, a master of divinity and a master of arts in theology and science from the Pacific School of Religion and a master’s degree in physics from the University of California at Los Angeles. As an undergraduate at Stanford University, he triple-majored in physics, religion and music. One example of philosophy influencing science, he said, surrounds the “big-bang” theory about the creation of the universe. Russell said some theorized a single event beginning the universe, while physicists said this created the philosophical paradox: “How could the universe have a beginning?" A competing theory, called the steady-state or ever-expanding-universe theory, was rejected by Albert Einstein in 1927 and called “an abomination.” But in 1931, after reviewing the theory and considering his own position, Einstein changed his mind and called his original opinion his “greatest blunder.”
“In my opinion,” Russell said, “this shows that philosophy can play a creative role in science” because evidence can be proven false as part of the scientific process. The big-bang theory and the steady-state theory are still being debated today, Russell said, and philosophical and theological considerations influence theory choice. Objections to the big-bang theory have also arisen on theological grounds. Some said the theory supported creation, while others disagreed, saying it would promote atheism. Other scientists said if the theory is relevant to theology, it should be abandoned. Russell said he thinks science is only indirectly relevant to theology. “Science provides confirmation for theology, and science and theology are in consonance with each other,” he said. “Science plays a secondary role in Christian faith, which primarily has its basis in Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.” Even though the theory of evolution is often vilified by Christians, Russell said for believers, theology can offer an explanation. “Evolution biology requires a specific set of circumstances to exist. There’s a very subtle connection to God, because if any of the circumstances had been any other way, we wouldn’t be here. “The existence of life puts constraints on the type of physics you have,” he said. “It ties physics and biology together. It’s not a design argument; it’s an argument against cosmic meaningless. Philosophy mediates between theology and science.” The Ginn Lectures were endowed at McAfee by Perry Ginn to encourage a deeper understanding by clergy and students of science and how it relates to the biblical revelation. Ginn is former pastor of several Georgia congregations, including First Baptist Church of Gainesville and Peachtree Baptist Church in Atlanta. He is semi-retired and currently serves as pastor of the North Clarendon Baptist Church in Avondale Estates, Ga. -30- Bob Perkins Jr. is an Atlanta-based writer who has written for Mercer University and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
                Comments (11)
 Darwinism not consistent with Christianity nor with teleology of any stripe
written by Xenophon, September 18, 2009
Dr. Russell says: "Even though the theory of evolution is often vilified by Christians, Russell said for believers, theology can offer an explanation. “Evolution biology requires a specific set of circumstances to exist. There’s a very subtle connection to God, because if any of the circumstances had been any other way, we wouldn’t be here."
The philosophical problem with trying to reconcile Darwinian evolution and Christianity is that the evolutionist is fundamentally committed to everything, including the conditions for biological evolution to occur, being the result of blind processes of random change. They reject purpose at any level. Darwin and his contemporary followers such as Daniel Dennett even push their rejection of teleology to the point that they believe that humans do not really act purposively, they only seem to. If we trace any thought down to the level of neurons in the brain, taking the "physical stance" as Dennett puts it, we will realize that any human intention is merely the random firing of patterns of neurons. Those who deny this fundamental analysis are said to deny science since evolutionists assert that science is inherently wedded to atomism--the philosophical view that everything,and I mean everything very literally, can be reduced to the random motions of atoms (or some other minute building block of the universe). Of course, theists of any sort reject complete randomness since such a view is inconsistent with a Creator. Randomness at any level is inconsistent with the Christian doctrine of God's Providence and sovereignty. ...
written by jbird, September 19, 2009
Two words: Francis Collins--I'm no scientist, but if Francis Collins "The Language of God", smart as he is (though maybe not as smart as xenophon), can hold the two together, I'm fine with it.
too bad you missed my comments on Collins
written by Xenophon, September 19, 2009
Apparently, you missed my comments on the article on Collins being appointed to head NIH, jbird. He does not hold it together, as you put it. DNA is obviously not the result of random processes. There is an inherent logical structure that is present in every strand of DNA contrary to the claim that seemingly complex organisms can be reduced to aggregations of simple, small building blocks. The complex "logical grammar" of life is present all the way down.
...
written by jbird, September 19, 2009
Am new here, x. I've heard and read a lot of F C in which he affirms 'theistic' evolution--clearly different from Dawkins and Dennett, but how different from what Russell said? BioLogos.org is Collins' website, if anyone is interested.
Ahem, here now!
written by Mark Osgatharp, September 19, 2009
Paul said:
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." He wrote these words almost 2000 years ago. He wrote them before the present day concepts of "DNA" or "evolution" were known to man. God's word is timeless and if the creation rendered man without excuse 2000 years ago it does so today. It does so without a telescope or a microscope. It does so without the musing of philosophers. It does so by the simple observation by the least educated human being of the physical creation. Paul is right, Russell is wrong. Science does prove God and renders all men without excuse. All who fail to acknowledge this fall into the condemnation of God, as it is written: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Amen? Mark Osgatharp Wynne, Arkansas reply to jbird
written by Xenophon, September 19, 2009
Thanks for your reply to my reply to you, jbird. Also, thanks for the link. I just looked at it. I found that Dr. Collins does address some of the key objections to macro-evolution and offers a critique of literal, historical readings of Genesis. I think it is relatively easy to respond to his main points from a literalist reading of Genesis.
For example, he questions where Cain the other folks who came into Cain's life could have come from. I would suggest that Cain could have found a wife unless there were other humans present at the time. The obvious answer is that he married one of his sisters. The genetic defects that afflict us were present in only an incipient form that close to Creation, so there was no problem with brother/sister incest at that point. The other people who would be out to get him were indeed the relatives of Abel as well as Cain who would have known what happened and were looking to avenge their innocent relative's murder. Collins puzzles over who could have populated the city that Cain founded. But over the course of the life-time of Cain, which lasted hundreds of years, Adam and Eve and their children multiplied exponentially, so that there could be enough people to live in cities before Cain died. Another argument that Dr. Collins employs against the literaist reading of Genesis is his claim that not all humans descended from the same set of parents. His claim is at odds with the genetic evidence pointing to one female from whom all humans descended, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve." According to genetic research, all humans possess the derivatives of her mitochondrial DNA, which accords with the story in Genesis. His conflicting account would be more likely if macro-evolution were true. Collins needs to discuss his apparent rejection of Mitochondrial Eve in more detail. Collins seems to claim that sin entered the world only after humans evolved and God conferred His image on two of the exemplary early humanoids. The problem here is how would he account for the dinosaurs and other organisms going extinct prior to humans introducing sin into the world? If he says that death had entered the world for animals before sin, then we have God being responsible for suffering even if it is only animal suffering. A question for Collins here is did these original humans suffer any pain before they chose to sin? Did the organisms prior to them, who did not sin since they lacked the relevant moral capacities, suffer? A further problem here is that if these humans had not sinned once endowed with free will, would they have died according to Collins' historical reconstruction? Would we be mortal if they had not sinned? If so, how would these humans dying or even suffering before the Fall be just? In short, it seems that Collins must either abandon classic natural history or admit that God created an imperfect universe, thereby losing the argument for theism to the standard atheist arguments against God based on the problem of evil. His understanding of natural history and the Bible also seems to fall prey to Hume's critique of the argument from design since God botched his attempt to create. (Notice here I am not saying that Collins presents an argument from design but that Hume's critique can be directed against his account of natural history.) Finally here, I raise the question, if Collins rejects the purposeless, random quality of nature, then why does he openly reject Intelligent Design? I am taking Dr. Russell to accept the randomness underpinning to evolution, which is philosophically incompatible with the Christian understanding of a Creator. Dr. Collins seems to believe that corrections
written by Xenophon, September 19, 2009
The first two sentences of my second paragraph above have so many problems that I need to correct them for purposes of clarity. What I have just above says:
For example, he questions where Cain the other folks who came into Cain's life could have come from. I would suggest that Cain could have found a wife unless there were other humans present at the time. What I should have said is: For example, he questions where the other folks who came into Cain's life could have come from. Dr. Collins raises the age-old question of where did Cain get his wife? ... [please ignore the second sentence in the original post] ...
written by jbird, September 20, 2009
Mr X, while I totally reject a literal reading of Genesis, I think U R correct that Collins (brilliant as he is as a scientist)has not faced up to some of the challenges his views pose to traditional theism. I find your last two paragraphs well said, and I'd enjoy watching you two face-off concerning them. I'm not certain about Collins' views on ID, but it does appear that some of what he writes is consistent with ID. Since I've left the ranks of traditional theism primarily because of the 'suffering world,' I probably don't even belong in this discussion. I certainly appreciate your calm, reasoned approach to all this. As we say back home. "I've 'shot my wad'"--no more posts.
Science Proves G-d?
written by cm1165, September 23, 2009
Really? You are going to make that argument? You are going to put G-d in the box? Limit G-d like that? Wow.
I love how people rail against the "Modern" world, yet still have a reductionist modern world few. Me? I choose not to limit G-d. Job tried. Didn't turn out to well. more on chance and Collins written by Xenophon, October 03, 2009
cm1165, are you addressing my critical comments on Francis Collins' attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution and Christianity? If so, could you please be more specific in what questions you are raising?
Incidentally, I accept much of the first wave of modernism from the 16th and 17th Centuries but reject much of the later wave of modernism dating to the early 20th Century, which paradoxically embraces a type of primitivism. I am not too keen on contemporary life in the U.S. But as for reductionism in science, which can be attributed to Newton, it has its place at one level of scientific investigation, but should not end there. There is a mechanical aspect to the physical world, but we should be careful in assuming that the elemental level is what is fundamentally real. 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
Nation
- Southern Baptist leaders ask Obama to intervene on behalf of missionaries
- Obama, Clinton at prayer breakfast denounce Ugandan anti-gay proposal
- Study finds abstinence-only programs effective in delaying sex
- Drake's lawyer claims legal precedent for courts to remove a head of state
- Study shows significant increase in American families going hungry
World
- North Carolina Baptist Men plan long-term effort in Haiti
- Pastor stays out of division reported among jailed Americans in Haiti
- Church seeks forgiveness for mission team detained in Haiti
- Baptists continue to meet needs in Haiti despite major obstacles
- Baptist group arrested in Haiti denies trafficking charge
| |
"Science doesn’t prove God."
Paul said:
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas