Lutheran scientists unite!

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Hi, I study biology full-time, and am without fail utterly appalled at how whenever LCMS or LCC publishes something about evolution or the science that clearly disagrees with their YEC preconceptions, they grossly distort the facts. It's so bad that I'd accuse them of bearing false witness against folks like me or full-time scientists who are just doing their studies as honestly as possible.

A great example of how ridiculous and obvious this distortion of facts is can be found here, which appears to be written by an Atheist or Agnostic:
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/08/18/lutheran-church-creation-and-evolution/

Importantly, the church is CLEARLY aware of these factual errors but doesn't seem to care. Or perhaps the people in charge simply lack the education to really understand what's going on. Who knows. I myself have emailed programs like Issues.etc complaining about how awful and dishonest their presentations of science and scientists are, and it seems the reply Smilodon got is common. "Our theology staff will review it," but then nothing is changed.

I know there are other people in the denomination (I'm LCC, but LCMS seems to be basically the same) who must be bothered by this too. If you're a scientist or student of the sciences who is bothered by this, what are you doing about it? Can we do more about it? The truth should be important to any church, and the mismanagement of this issue gives me some serious moral tension about being a part of this denomination.

If you're a YEC, I don't have a problem with you as long as you don't lie about me or what I do.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi and welcome to Christian Forums and TCL

I'm LCC (East District), and since my Church holds YEC, so do I. Am I troubled by this in the light of science? Nope. Why? Because I don't see this as something that one's eternal salvation is dependent on. YEC/OEC have no effect on my life in this world, nor do I think it will have in the next.

Mark

 

[Tangible]

There is a world of difference between basic YEC and Creation Science. IMO, the Answers in Genesis crowd do no justice to the YEC cause because first they exceed scripture to make their "scriptural" argument by reading lots of things into the text that simply aren't there, and secondly they attempt to use science to prove creation which according to scripture is an article of faith (Hebrews 11:3).

The purpose of the Scriptures is not to give a detailed, scientific account of creation. The purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal Christ crucified for sinners.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

I think we can all agree (or at least, seems to be the case with you two fellows) that whether you hold to YEC or whatever else, it probably doesn't really have a big impact on your life unless you're actively involved with Biology/Geology etc. I honestly have no problem with LCC or LCMS holding to a basic form of YEC; that can be an honest way to interpret the Bible.

The problem is the church putting their feet in their mouths and/or bearing false witness against those of us who are involved in the study of evolution. Seems to usually be due to attempts at allying with organizations with AIG or CMI, both of which as Tangible points out, abuse scripture. I personally would say they abuse the truth in science as well. So the question is, what can be done about it? My current efforts seem useless.

 

[LizaMarie]

I agree completely with what Tangible said.
And speaking for myself, I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years old.
My beliefs are pretty much the same as Dr. Hugh Ross(astronomer and astrophysisist at www.reasons.org.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think this is an issue that will ever go away. So, I'm not proposing any grand plans, but I could suggest a little exercise for us here. In essence, what reply do you think the LCMS and/or LCC should give to evolution? To facilitate that, let's start with this question:

Why does this issue come up in the LCMS/LCC?

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

In an ideal world, I would think that LCMS/LCC should respond to evolution by doing careful critical research, consulting its own scientists members without bias, and not comment on the subject any more than they can safely do without reasonable doubt. Simply being careful to not say anything false seems like a reasonable goal.

As far as I can tell, the issue comes up because folks who are critical about "creation science" claims just aren't consulted or given serious consideration when doing things like writing official positions like the LCMS Creation/Evolution document, or discussing the topics on programs like Issues.etc. That leaves mostly the ignorant or dishonest to inform leadership about scientific matters relevant to this issue (certainly there are also YEC scientists who are scientifically literate and are careful to not lie about the science, like Todd Wood, but they seem in the minority). I haven't seen any significant criticism of anyone or any claim that tows the YEC party line within the church, no matter how ridiculous the claims may be.

 

[Resha Caner]

In an ideal world, I would think that LCMS/LCC should respond to evolution by doing careful critical research, consulting its own scientists members without bias, and not comment on the subject any more than they can safely do without reasonable doubt. Simply being careful to not say anything false seems like a reasonable goal.

Hmm. The Lutheran church doesn't have its "own scientists" nor should it. Science is not the focus of the Church, so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. As far as being "without bias", there is no such thing. How would it be decided who is biased and who is not? I hope you're not simply seeking to make the church agree with you.

As far as I can tell, the issue comes up because folks who are critical about "creation science" claims just aren't consulted or given serious consideration when doing things like writing official positions like the LCMS Creation/Evolution document, or discussing the topics on programs like Issues.etc.

I was asking a broader question. Why does the Church even discuss evolution? I can think of a lot of reasons:
* People are afraid it means the Bible isn't true
* People are pushing social agendas in one form or another
* People feel it degrades them
* People want to define who is "in" and who is "out"
* ...

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Hmm. The Lutheran church doesn't have its "own scientists" nor should it. Science is not the focus of the Church, so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. As far as being "without bias", there is no such thing. How would it be decided who is biased and who is not? I hope you're not simply seeking to make the church agree with you.

The Lutheran church certainly does have members who are scientists. I'm not saying they're employed by the church as scientists, and I'm not sure that they should be. It's true that science is not the focus of the church, so simply not commenting on the subject at all might better than the status quo, but if comments must be made then proper research on the subject should be done. It's not a matter of deciding who is biased and who is not, it's a matter of doing proper research and inquiring of qualified perspectives from people who agree with you and those who don't. Sure, this can't eliminate all bias, but it does go a long way,which is why it's standard practice in academia to address all pertinent sources when discussing a topic. The church should care at least as much about truth and honesty as secular academia does. I certainly don't expect the church to agree with my perspective other than sharing my value for honesty and truth.

I was asking a broader question. Why does the Church even discuss evolution? I can think of a lot of reasons:
* People are afraid it means the Bible isn't true
* People are pushing social agendas in one form or another
* People feel it degrades them
* People want to define who is "in" and who is "out"
* ...

These are certainly also important factors in this discussion, and the fact is they are difficult questions that people have. All except the second are natural questions that arise out of attempts to synthesize the spiritual component of our faith with the physical world. So I would also add:
*People want to know how to understand faith and the physical world in context with each other

 

[Resha Caner]

The Lutheran church certainly does have members who are scientists. I'm not saying they're employed by the church as scientists, and I'm not sure that they should be. It's true that science is not the focus of the church, so simply not commenting on the subject at all might better than the status quo, but if comments must be made then proper research on the subject should be done.

I realize there are scientists who are members of Lutheran churches, but I don't see why they in particular should be consulted. To elaborate further, I'm not aware of any characteristic of Lutherans such that they would bring anything unique to science. Maybe you can explain why you think only Lutheran scientists should be consulted.

Asking this another way, why should laymen be consulted on any such topics at all? Should we be checking with the laity on whether the Church should change its stance on abortion, homosexuality, etc.? Or should we be seeking God's will as revealed to us in His Word?

These are certainly also important factors in this discussion, and the fact is they are difficult questions that people have. All except the second are natural questions that arise out of attempts to synthesize the spiritual component of our faith with the physical world. So I would also add:
*People want to know how to understand faith and the physical world in context with each other

And people want to know which stocks to invest in. Should they come to the Church for answers to that question? Why do they seek the Church for an answer to evolution? Maybe the Church should remain silent on the question of evolution. I'm not saying that's my position, but I think we need to get to the root of the issue.

Is there a theological issue being challenged by evolution? I will state that if the answer is "no", then the Church should remain silent on this question. I happen to think there are theological issues, but even then I will say it is largely irrelevant to the Church whether evolution is true or not. It is only in those particular places where evolution touches the theological that we need to have a discussion. As such, I'm not sure the research you refer to is necessary ... but maybe I just need to understand better what you mean.

... And I don't want to lose sight of my original post. I expect we disagree on evolution, but I'm not here to change your mind. Rather, I'm curious if we could forge a statement about evolution to which we would both agree.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Asking this another way, why should laymen be consulted on any such topics at all? Should we be checking with the laity on whether the Church should change its stance on abortion, homosexuality, etc.?

Correct me if wrong, but I think I see what you're getting at. Agreeably, God's word should dictate the church's stances, not popular opinion. But that's not what I'm getting at. This thread is about dishonesty about scientists and scientific evidence, and the majority of our pastors and other leadership don't have the benefit of the science education needed to critically evaluate scientific claims (though I've heard of some who sound like qualified scientists in other threads, such as a Pr. Bill Cwrila). When coming to positions on a field of study, it's only reasonable to inquire of those qualified to speak on the issue in order to avoid misrepresenting facts or other people. That's why such people should be involved in any such discussion, regardless of what your conclusion is.

Should they come to the Church for answers to that question? Why do they seek the Church for an answer to evolution?

They come to the church for answers to that question because they expect the church to have the answers, because as you noted, people sense that evolution has theological challenges. I agree that where evolution touches the theological, some sort of discussion is therefore needed. That discussion, and any resulting conclusions could be extremely simple (e.g. "most scientists come to this conclusion based on their research, but we come to this other conclusion based on this method on interpreting scripture). I think if it's any more involved than that that, and you're talking about specific scientific points and how scientists get to their conclusions, you need to do the type of research I've described to avoid speaking dishonestly.

I expect we disagree on evolution, but I'm not here to change your mind. Rather, I'm curious if we could forge a statement about evolution to which we would both agree.

I'm really not interested in changing anyone's mind about YEC or Old Earth either. I'd like to see a mutually agreeable statement on evolution as well. I would start by suggesting something along the lines of my simple statement above: "most scientists come to Old Earth/Evolutionary conclusions based on studying the physical world, but we come to this basic-YEC conclusion based on our method on interpreting scripture, which we think is a more convincing authority on the matter." I think that accurately and fairly represents everyone involved.

 

[Resha Caner]

Correct me if wrong, but I think I see what you're getting at. Agreeably, God's word should dictate the church's stances, not popular opinion.

I think you understand me now.

But that's not what I'm getting at. This thread is about dishonesty about scientists and scientific evidence ...

Be careful. I don't like the LCMS statements on evolution either, but I've never gotten an impression of willful misrepresentation. They are speaking what they believe to be the truth.

... and the majority of our pastors and other leadership don't have the benefit of the science education needed to critically evaluate scientific claims (though I've heard of some who sound like qualified scientists in other threads, such as a Pr. Bill Cwrila). When coming to positions on a field of study, it's only reasonable to inquire of those qualified to speak on the issue in order to avoid misrepresenting facts or other people. That's why such people should be involved in any such discussion, regardless of what your conclusion is.

People should always do their best to understand the issue of which they speak, regardless of whether they are pastors or not. But there is a higher standard involved here. When speaking for an organization such as the LCMS, they need to be doubly, triply, careful. But the same problem remains. Who is to choose what sources to trust and what viewpoint to speak?

Before rejecting YEC, I went on a very long journey. So, I think I understand where YEC goes wrong. Yet, where I've ended up has its own set of challenges. So, while it may be fun to discuss, I don't want the LCMS to go down that rabbit hole.

I'm really not interested in changing anyone's mind about YEC or Old Earth either. I'd like to see a mutually agreeable statement on evolution as well. I would start by suggesting something along the lines of my simple statement above: "most scientists come to Old Earth/Evolutionary conclusions based on studying the physical world, but we come to this basic-YEC conclusion based on our method on interpreting scripture, which we think is a more convincing authority on the matter." I think that accurately and fairly represents everyone involved.

I think you're on the right track. I think it's best to keep it short and sweet, and keep it focused on the truth of God's Word. At the same time, I don't like the NOMA aspect of your wording. I'll try to think of an alternative.

 

[Resha Caner]

Assuming all the standard positional statements on the veracity of the Bible and a historical interpretation of Genesis, I suppose my proposed statement would be something like:

It must be clear that there is one God and one truth, not many gods and many truths. With that said, Genesis is a summary of historical events, not a detailed account. Attempts to extract detail and apply any kind of analytical method (scientific or otherwise) is a human undertaking subject to human frailty. The Church remains silent on the accuracy of scientific detail and only speaks on those matters that touch upon the theological. We stand firm on what has been revealed in God's Word, and appreciate the willingness of the scientific community to consider alternatives to currently accepted theory.

Those revelations from God's Word upon which we stand, but which might appear to conflict with current scientific theory include:
* God created everything (Col 1:16)
* God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it in 6 days (Exodus 20:11)
[* People are a special creation of God (Gen 1:27)
* Death came to people through sin and only Christ can save us (Rom 5:12, Acts 4:12)]
* etc. I'm not sure how long the list should be, but I would try to keep it brief. Those are probably the [4] big ones.

My version is wordier than yours, and I'd like to cut it down if I could, but it gives you something to poke at.

[I made some edits that appear in brackets [] ]

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

I've never gotten an impression of willful misrepresentation. They are speaking what they believe to be the truth.

I'd believe this for most pastors in LCMS/LCC, but a large percentage of professional Creation Scientists seem to be quite deliberately dishonest. The church is still responsible for welcoming dishonesty and misinformation into the church uncritically.

Who is to choose what sources to trust and what viewpoint to speak?

I'm not sure how much of a real conundrum this is. Just by honestly listening to all sides and taking care to properly represent them when you speak about them, you can eliminate much of the misrepresentation problem.

I think you're on the right track. I think it's best to keep it short and sweet, and keep it focused on the truth of God's Word. At the same time, I don't like the NOMA aspect of your wording. I'll try to think of an alternative.

Hm,I guess NOMA could be interpreted into that. What I intend is something more along the lines of "Mysteriousely Overlapping Magisteria" though. That is, it's a mystery how these things relate to each other. I think this sort of idea would be well within the bounds of Lutheran thought. Not entirely dissimilar to the real presence in the Sacrament of the Altar not being scientifically verifiable. I'll think about how all this relates to your proposal for a statement and see what I can think up.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'd believe this for most pastors in LCMS/LCC, but a large percentage of professional Creation Scientists seem to be quite deliberately dishonest. The church is still responsible for welcoming dishonesty and misinformation into the church uncritically.

I'll give you that.

I'm not sure how much of a real conundrum this is. Just by honestly listening to all sides and taking care to properly represent them when you speak about them, you can eliminate much of the misrepresentation problem.

I think it would be tough.

Hm,I guess NOMA could be interpreted into that. What I intend is something more along the lines of "Mysteriousely Overlapping Magisteria" though. That is, it's a mystery how these things relate to each other. I think this sort of idea would be well within the bounds of Lutheran thought. Not entirely dissimilar to the real presence in the Sacrament of the Altar not being scientifically verifiable. I'll think about how all this relates to your proposal for a statement and see what I can think up.

Now that's a cool idea! I like it. I'll have to let it ferment for awhile before I could give assent, but the idea has definite potential ... though I suppose it would only be accepted by believers, not unbelievers who are demanding evidence.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Ok, here's another try. I used yours as a template, so it has much of your wording still:

Genesis is understood to be a summary of historical events, not a detailed account. Attempts to extract additional detail from the account via any kind of analytical method (scientific or otherwise) is a human undertaking subject to human limitations. The Church remains silent on the accuracy of scientific conclusions and only speaks on those matters that touch upon the theological. We stand firm on what is understood to be clearly revealed in God's Word, and appreciate the mystery of how it relates to the findings of scientific investigations in places where there is apparent conflict.

Those revelations from God's Word upon which we stand, but which might appear to conflict with current scientific theory include:
* God created the universe and everything in it (Col 1:16)
* God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it in 6 days (Exodus 20:11)
* Humans are a special creation of God (Gen 1:27)
* Death came to people through sin and only Christ can save us from it (Rom 5:12, Acts 4:12)

That seems a lot more fair than any current LCMS/LCC statement on the subject. Though, this hypothetical type of statement wouldn't in itself distance the church from charlatans working for the likes of AIG. At least it doesn't paint 99.99% of biologists and geologists as dishonest or incompetent.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm OK with it. But, no one else has really commented on it yet.

You're right that it doesn't take a particular stance on information disseminated by AIG, etc., and that's why I like it. It does exactly what it says and doesn't choose one scientific perspective over another. But it does stand firm on God's Word. If something like this were ever adopted, church workers would need to be briefed that it is the official position, and only this is the official position.

From there it needs to be understood that this statement won't satisfy everyone's questions. So, the next step would be to prepare supplemental materials to help church workers facilitate productive discussions about evolution among their laity.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Yeah, I don't think a statement directly condemning AIG type organizations would be appropriate, but this sort of thing would at least open up conversation to honestly critique them. A statement similar to this would be the ideal.

So it's been demonstrated (at least to you and I) that LCC/LCMS could be faithful to its interpretation of Genesis and also avoid making foolish ignorant statements about science and scientists. But the original question is still there: what can we do about it?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Let's be mindful that the Bible is not a Science book; no more than it is a History book; but when it speaks of scientific things, it is accurate; just as it is when it speaks about history. It is not a complete manual on either of these topics. What is is, is the inerrant word of God. That is good enough for me; I take it on faith.

 

[Resha Caner]

Let's be mindful that the Bible is not a Science book; no more than it is a History book; but when it speaks of scientific things, it is accurate; just as it is when it speaks about history. It is not a complete manual on either of these topics. What is is, is the inerrant word of God. That is good enough for me; I take it on faith.

I agree. But, it's not satisfactory for everyone, so I was trying to help.

But the original question is still there: what can we do about it?

I started this off by saying I wasn't going to try to do anything major. The biggest reason is I don't think I have the necessary credentials. My earlier question was: Why should the LCMS take the advice of the laity? That question applies to me. Why would they take my advice?

I say that not as a defeatist statement, but from experience. I tried to have an impact in a few places and failed because I lacked credibility. As a result, I'm trying again but in a more methodical manner that will hopefully achieve those credentials. It doesn't mean I'll succeed, but it's hard for me not to try. The problem is, things like this take a large dose of motivation, dedication, and determination. IOW, it takes a very long time. As such, I just don't have the bandwidth to take on any more.

Evolution/creation does pique my curiosity from time to time. So, I spent some time looking at it and made my conclusions. I worked with a biology journal to formalize my thoughts as best I could and to see if they would bite on my idea. I expect to get the final answer sometime around the end of the year. If they accepted, it might give me a portion of the credibility needed to approach the LCMS. But my honest expectation is that they will reject me, and so the real reason I went through all that was so I could put it to rest in my own mind and focus on things I think I am better suited for.

Another way to say it is that I've placed it in God's hands. I put my idea out there, and if God wants to use it he will bless it. So, all of this is a very long way of saying I would recommend you do the same. Build your credentials - present your view - and all the while be praying that God will give a clear indication whether that is where He wants you to be working. So far I've not received that indication, but maybe you will.