Sciene Vs Religion

[ilgwamh]

Hi, I posted this at four other message boards

An Open Discussion and Debate Forum here:
target=_blank>[url]http://pub5.ezboard.com/fzetoumeneh...picID=139.topic[/URL]

And the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum here:
target=_blank>[url]http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb....c&f=58&t=001037[/URL]

Pizza Parlor creation and evolution forum here:

http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?amp;postid=95365#post95365

Sciforums religion debate forum:

http://www.sciforums.com/f22/sbd1c29714fc5f3d3fb56c0b1933c1ef6/showthread.php?amp;threadid=8825

I linked those three just in case anyone is interested in viewing other's thoughts on this excerpt I am posting:

this is an excerpt from the still ongoing rough draft of a much larger work:

 

I must post it in 2 parts as the character limit for posts here is only 15,000.

Since Christianity is anything but monolithic, some of the next objections will not apply to all verbal plenary inspiration with inerrancy advocates but I think they would apply to virtually all fundamentalists and a great deal of VPI w/ I advocates. It is no secret that the intellectual climate of modernity has not been very hospitable to the Christian Faith. One area of intense debate between fellow Christians and between Christians and non-Christians lies in the age of the earth and universe. The creation/evolution debate has an interesting history. In 1632, John Lightfoot published an erroneous calculation of the earth’s age based upon historical events in the Bible, Biblical genealogies and a 6 day creative week. The posited date was September 17th, 3928 BC. In 1650, Archbishop Usher of Ireland published, consequently, an erroneous correction of Lightfoot’s date which happened to be October the 3rd, 4004 BC. In the final round Lightfoot corrected Usher’s date and even gave a specific time for Adam’s birth! Needless to say, the 4004 BC creation date has made a big impact on the Christian church. It was widely accepted without much questioning but then scientific research started coming in that implied Genesis 1 was inaccurate. That is when things turned ugly. In the words of Hugh Ross (Creation and Time, p. 15), “beginning some 350 years ago, friendly dialogue slowly degenerated into nasty polarization.” Once evolution came into the picture we saw a full blown war break out. Christians found the “descent-of-man- theory especially insulting as it posited man developed from lower creatures. There are many notable events in the creation/evolution wars including the production of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, the Huxley/Wilberforce debate, the Scopes Trial, et cetera. An in depth discussion of the history behind the creation/evolution controversy is beyond the scope of this paper. For those looking for a concise summary of the events Hugh Ross (ibid, chapters 2 and 3) offers a good overview. I’d like to end the very brief intro here into the history of the controversy with a quote from Dr. Ross (ibid, p 32-33) pertaining to the Wilberforce/Huxley debate:

“His back against the wall, Wilberforce sought a rhetorical victory, asking Huxley if he claimed descent from monkeys on his mother’s side. Huxley’s brilliant reply will long be remembered:

I would rather be descended from a poor chattering ape than from a man of great talents who would appeal to prejudice rather than to truth.”

There is dispute as to what exactly Huxley said or in what context or what effect it had so having not personally researched it in depth I purposefully included very few reference to such things (the limited ones I included serve to give the dialogue some context which helps it flow better). Even if this account didn’t happen strictly in such a way or at all it is still relevant in that it highlights contemporary feelings on the issue very well. Many Christians still find the idea of man descending from lower life forms vulgar and demeaning. It is not uncommon to find some Christians today ignorantly rejecting the idea that they/we came from monkeys. Scientists would largely agree with this claim but this is so due to sheer coincidence. What the common Christian does not know is that monkeys and man are said to have a common ancestor, meaning we are actually cousins with monkeys and not their descendents.


Young Earth Creationism


It is beyond the scope of this paper to go through and refute all the various arguments for a young earth from the shrinking sun to the Paluxy man-prints. There are many and they cross many different fields of research. Many others have undertaken such critiques and I once engaged in such debating but the science of Gish, Morris, Hovind, et al. is so notoriously bad that many find it not worth bothering with. To highlight one ironic example from the creation/evolution archives: Creationists championed Michael Behe’s “Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe argued that the irreducible complexity of molecular machines presented problems for standard evolutionary theory. To put it quite simply, Behe’s argument is that Darwinian-evolution cannot account for the complexity of the cell. Creationists were eager to take up the “mouse trap” analogy and use the book as solid evidence against evolution. Here is the irony: Behe actually accepts descent with modification! From page 5, “Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” Behe is an I.D. proponent, not a creationist and in my estimation, his work has not fared well when peer-reviewed. I recommend Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God (especially Chapter 5, God The Mechanic) for a critique of Behe’s Black Box.


Stumbling Block to the Scientific Community


The creation/evolution issue has become a stumbling block in the secular arena. The vast majority of scientists all accept an old earth and evolution. When young earth creationists posit a 6,000 year old earth and claim that is how the Bible must be interpreted, the validity of the Gospel message is greatly diminished in the eyes of many. A 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous in the eyes of scientists who know that this notion is at odds with virtually all facets of scientific study that yield approximations of an objects age: carbon dating, radio dating, big bang cosmology, the light reaching us from immensely distant heavenly bodies, geology, et cetera. In science we have specialized fields all telling us that the earth is not 6,000 years old. Independent vectors are crossing and multiply attesting this fact. Those who wish to argue against the scientific consensus here may toy with notions of a once posited “geocentric earth” and bring up dead theories like “phlogiston” but such things do not help their case. No one will deny science has not been wrong before but science is progressive. We learn more and more as generations of scientists come and go. Now, we have many specialized fields of science and specialized fields within the specialized fields! If you compare the one time consensus on “an infinite and isotropic universe” to the consensus on the “age of the earth” or the “big bang model”, you will see there is no comparison. Various fields all converge on the earth's antiquity. Dad any genuinely independent fields ever converge on phlogiston?

Science differs from other fields of study like history in that it is afforded the luxury of repeatable observation and repeatable experimentation. It reaches stronger conclusions than fields like history. Some pious believers might object with “but how can we repeatedly observe the big bang?” Such an objection misses the point. We can repeatedly measure the cosmic background radiation. We can fine tune our instruments and measure it better. We can repeatedly observe the red shifting of galaxies. The Big bang is attested to by the equations of general relativity which has the title of the most highly tested theory in all of physics. Among many other things, it’s explained to astronomers something that Mercury does as it orbits the sun that had plagued them. Newtonian gravitational theory could not account for the observed additional 43 seconds of arc per century while Einstein’s equations do. There are other classical tests of general relativity (e.g. deflection of starlight, gravitational red shift, and gravitational radiation). General relativity has been experimentally verified to a trillionth of a percent accuracy.

It should be noted today that young earth creationism is more prominent and widespread in the United States of America. Furthering the divide in America, many Christians want creationism taught in schools! This has intensified the problem even more as the fight is now over children—the youth and future of our nation!

It is interesting to note that after Usher and Lightfoot’s calculations Christian witnessing attempts in Asia were stymied partially because Chinese historical records gave a date for the origin and spread of human civilization that was earlier than the proposed Christian date of the universe! Despite the enormous intellectual hurdle one must leap, many Christians adhere to the notion of a 6,000 year old earth. It is presented as a dilemma for conservative Christians. Either the scientific age or the Biblical one is accurate. Only one can accurately correspond to reality. So believers are told to choose their side: fidelity to the Bible, or embrace secular science. Such a polarization is unnecessary and illogical for reasons to be mentioned below. Despite this, the intensity of the polarization can not be denied. Hugh Ross (ibid pp 42-43) relays the following:

“In 1992 the Institute for Creation Research published an article in its Back to Genesis magazine about the importance of belief in a young earth for determining a person’s role in the church and in ministry. The article’s author, John Morris, ends with this statement:

I am still uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching. But I do know one thing: [young-earth] Creationism should be made a requirement for Christian leadership! No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine.”

Young earth creationism is a requirement in some places for church membership and some go even farther and view it as a litmus test for determining whether one is a “true Christian” or not. Hugh Ross (ibid. pp. 43-44) addresses the damage very well:

“Is it any wonder that individuals trained in the sciences, especially those with little or no Christian background, find it difficult to make their way into churches? How painful to be a disciple of Christ or a sincere seeker and yet be regarded as an enemy of the faith!

How difficult, too, for the devout fundamentalist, trained as he is to stand firm against compromise and worldly thinking, to embrace as a brother or sister anyone who believes in a billions-of-years-old universe or earth. According to what he has been taught, such people must be evil, for they can only be evolutionists.

With these dynamics at work, open, friendly dialogue has become virtually impossible. Instead, heated debates, confrontations, public attacks, and watchdog committees rule the day.”

What is wrong with young earth creationism? There is zero scientific evidence in support of a young earth and I think the interpretation of Genesis one is shaky and is based on the pretense of being inerrant and infallible. If we view it as a human work we would see it in the same light as other creation myths. Even under a literal and factual interpretation of Genesis 1 we do not glean a young earth. I have critiqued the views of two creationists elsewhere (see the “Authenticating the Day-Age Theory link in the bibliography) who argued that the days of Genesis 1 must be literal 24 hour periods. The young earth view isn’t even the traditional interpretation as it is often proclaimed. From a few ancient commentators:

 

[ilgwamh]

Philo Judaeus: Allegorical Interpretation

It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth; but the sun is part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would there be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven's movement that was the index of the nature of time. When, then, Moses says, "he finished His work on the sixth day," we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely six.

In Philo's words, it is quite foolish to think that creation occurred in six days.


Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 16

The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," " by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder. For the creations on the different days followed in a most important succession; so that all things brought into existence might have honour from priority, created together in thought, but not being of equal worth. Nor was the creation of each signified by the voice, inasmuch as the creative work is said to have made them at once. For something must needs have been named first. Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.

Clement is often supported as believing in literal 24-hour creation days but this is not true. Clement believed the days communicated the order and priority of created things.

Origen, Fist Principles, Book 4
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

Origen taught that when approaching difficulties in scripture we should seek a spiritual rather than literal meaning. He viewed creation as one example of scenario.

Augustine, The City of God

"As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean."

Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
"But at least we know that it [Genesis Creation Day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."

All in all, I think the fundamentalist church has greatly blundered on this issue. It makes the Gospel claim of Christianity seem nonsensical to the educated of the secular arena. Young earth creationism gives those skeptics eager to argue an easy stockpile of ammunition and it serves as a red herring which puts the focus on the age of the earth rather than on Jesus of Nazareth. It takes attention off of and trivializes the Gospel message. In my estimation, young earth creationism, based upon a “literal” reading of the Genesis 1 and 2, is a hindrance to the proclamation of the Gospel.

Old Earth Creationism

Young earth creationism is not the only type of creationism. There is also old earth creationism advocated by the likes of Hugh Ross, Gerald Schroeder, et al. I have read numerous works by both Ross and Schroeder and I find their brand of creationism to be a refreshing change from the young earth variety. I have to disagree with the central tenet of their work though. Part of Hugh Ross’ creation model is a rejection of Darwinian evolution. I find the evidence for common descent to be overwhelming and stand with the scientific consensus on the issue. Ross, in The Genesis Question (p. 52) pretty much argues that God created “transitional” forms. I find this view dubious at best. The fact of the matter is that as close as Ross may come, he has not achieved an exact concordance between the Bible and science (and that is being lenient and granting all the linguistic and interpretation gymnastics). Schroeder on the other hand seems to accept the fossil record which tells us that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. Schroeder, in The Science of God (p. 126) speculates that, “Adam may have been the first hominid with a divinely created soul.” I cannot disprove such a hypothesis nor do I wish to, but I think both Schroeder and Ross are force fitting data based upon preconceived notions. Later down the page Schroeder says “It is possible to explain the hominid fossils that predate Adam as having been placed there as a test by the Creator. And that may be true. There certainly is no way of disproving this hypothesis.” This reeks of literalist harmonization. Those convinced of the authority of their sacred scriptures will tread through miles and miles of marshland on torturous journeys in an attempt to justify apparent factual discrepancies. Any and every type of explanations will be offered. I do not wish to give a false impression and lump Ross and Schroeder in with extremists because even though I find their perspective flawed, they have more sober points of view. I think the writings of both reflect some genuine scholarly integrity.

It should also be noted that a major problem with Schroeder’s reconstruction lies in the dating of creation of the earth. Schroeder's tries to correlate human days and divine days largely through the use of relativity and time dilation. In The Science of God (chapters 3 and 4) he argues 6 days from one perspective are 15,000,000,000 years from another. Through his calculations he has day one being around 8 billion years in length. Given that the universe is 15 billion years old and the earth 4.6 billion years old the earth could not have existed on day one of the Genesis creation account. This means his view must not have Genesis 1:1-2 mentioning anything about the earth.

Gen 1:1-2 NIV 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the

On page 66 Schroeder is on record as saying that Genesis 1:2 has God hovering over the universe and he fails to mention anything about the earth. He then goes on to argue that this is the biblical description of the inflation of our universe.

The NAS Hebrew Lexicon has the word translated earth in Gen 1:2 being the transliterated word 'erets'. Calling this the universe does not seem justified to me and I have never seen a translation of that as “universe.” Schroeder failed to even address this issue in his work. I think ailing to address this issue did a great disservice to his readers and to his work.

Given Schroeder’s “test by the Creator” speculation above, a vexing question asks: why the test? Yes I can’t “disprove” the hypothesis but does God really care what one believes about ancient hominid fossils? As long as the belief is not a hindrance to other things like creationism has become, my opinion is a resounding “No!” I do not wish to put answers into God’s mouth but the question already has done so. Another question to ask would be: why are we even accepting the account of Adam and Eve as literal? Talking snakes, a magic tree of life and a mythological paradise in a world preceded by billions of years of “savagery” and “cruelty”. Nature is red in tooth and claw and it has been so since the beginning. Why do the mythical accounts in the Bible get a free pass on their historicity? Its seems to be special pleading based upon preconceived notions of what the Bible or Old Testament is. I see it as a human work. Ross and Schroeder see Genesis 1 as God’s Word. We view it in different lights but I need not appeal to fanciful harmonization attempts of fanciful accounts and I think there is a much better case in favor of the books of the Bible as human works then there is for it being the Word of God.


Integrating Science and Religion

All in all, I find today’s church to have faltered in the scientific arena--more so in the young earth camp than anywhere else. I have no ready-made answer that will dispose of this red herring but I offer a moderate proposal on how Christians can integrate both religious and scientific study into their worldviews instead of viewing them as mutually exclusive. My solution may come as a surprise to many as science and religion have undergone polarization. Science and religion are like dogs and cats in the eyes of most. This view, however, is incorrect.

Theology is basically the study of God and God’s relation to the world and it goes way back. Many theologians have produced Systematic theologies (also called Christian theology by Christians which indicates that there are other types of theology) and as Allister Mcgrath noted in Christian Theology An Introduction (p. 3), “Anyone who thinks about the great question of Christian theology soon discovers that many of them have already been addressed. It is virtually impossible to do theology as if it had never been done before. There is always the element of looking over one’s shoulder to see how things were done in the past, and what answers were given.” The church has a rich theological history and the sheer abundance of literature can be quite overwhelming and frustrating at times. As far as I am concerned, Christian theology is most easily defined as the academic discipline that studies Christian doctrine. Believers of all shades systematically formulate their religious beliefs whether they do so consciously or not. Systematic theology as an academic discipline must incorporate and utilize a proper methodology. Obviously, if we are to engage in Christian theology one must presuppose there are modes to gleaning or clearly observing information about God. Therefore, I do not expect atheists to agree with all of the details of the model below but it works for believers. It is my contention that Christian theology can be called a science today in that it involves classified or systematized knowledge but as Garrett tells us (ibid., p 6), "Christian Theology is not a "science" in the sense of dealing primarily with realities that are "subject to weight and measurement"--a definition most germane to the physical and natural sciences." Garret then went on to highlight the differences and similarities between the tasks and methods of the Christian faith and physical sciences which were noted by Edgar Mullins in The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (pg 83):

Four Chief Differences and Three Similarities Between the Tasks and Methods of Christian Theology and the Physical Sciences:

Differences

1 They deal with different realities. A spiritual vs. material reality.
2 Their modes of knowledge differ (sensory experience versus fellowship with God derived from and consistent with a historical revelation of God).
3. They deal with different types of causality (transformation of energy versus interaction of persons.
4. They reach different formulations of their results (laws of mathematical formulas vs. unique historical events together with general principals or teachings).

Similarities

1. Only facts are taken into account.
2. The realities dealt with are only partially known. Compare further observation and experimentation with 1 Corinthians 13:12 and 1 John 3:2
3. Both seek systematic formulations of what is known.

I want to look at number four above more closely as I find it important. John Polkinghorne, in Belief in God in an Age of Science, (p. 47) said something very similar: “Of course, the analogy between scientific and theological inquiry is not complete. Theology does not enjoy the luxury that experiment grants to science, of being able to deal with essentially controllable and repeatable experiences. It has to look to the given and unrepeatable revelatory events in which God has chosen to make the divine nature known.” It could also be argued, as Polkinghorne does, that “Theological inquiry is also not simply concerned with quenching the intellectual thirst for understanding. Its insights demand response and carry implications for human conduct.” Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive fields. In my view, they are modes of knowledge (albeit ones with differences) about God’s created world that both give priority to thought. Though there are some chief differences, I agree with what John Polkinghorne assessment that “in both science and theology, the central question is, and remains, the question of truth. We shall never attain a total grasp of it but in both disciplines we may hope for a developing understanding of it.”

This model does not polarize religion and science and force people to choose between antithetical positions. It also does not involve harmonizing mythological texts with prevailing scientific theories nor must one incorporate a denial of evolution into their belief system in order to be logically consistent. It is a respectable position that does not treat either science or religion with contempt. It does not trivialize the Gospel in any way, shape or form to view science and religion as non overlapping modes of knowledge about our world. They are not enemies, but friends.

Thoughts?

 

[Raging Atheist]

First off, I would never refer to theology as a "science".  A scholarly pursuit, of course, but never a science.

I guess its important for Christians to try and incorporate the modern world into their lives somehow, but the whole concept of trying to integrate science and theology just sounds like "pandering to the masses" to me.  All this effort to compromise with a theory that is obvious falsehood?  I know moderate Christians see it as a necessity, but to me its in the same boat as buying a screaming kid ice cream just to shut him up.

Other than that, I thought it was a very nice paper.  Do you explicitly state what exactly this "model" is that you're talking about?  I see where you define the differences between the study of science and theology, but I guess I missed the important party.  Bah, try not to take as an insult.  I can barely stay awake with this allergy medicine.

Oh, and I loved the history of the growing debate in the beginning.