God and Science
Back in Spring 06, my last semester of college I took a debate class (Communication, Controversy, and Citizenship) with Professor Dana Cloud (which incidentally were my favorite class and favorite professor). The interesting thing about my relationship with Professor Cloud is that we would probably take the polar opposite position on nearly every major (or even minor) issue, but we had a great deal of mutual respect because we had thought through the issues. Another reason I liked the class so much was that my good friend Jordan Tardy took it with me. When it came time to pick a subject area we would like to debate, we both chose religion (on the “pro” side). When we met with the “con” side we couldn’t really decide what to debate. Prayer in schools? The Ten Commandments? We had no interest advocating the forcing Judeo-Christian beliefs on every schoolchild.
We finally found something to debate when we drifted to the subject of evolution. We believed that not only the theory of evolution, but also the philosophy of naturalism was being forced upon schoolchildren as the only viable option. Jordan and I decided to take the stance that alternatives to evolution should be taught alongside evolution; while the other two were arguing that evolution and only evolution should be taught.
We both skimmed several books such as Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and Philip Johnson’s books that started the Intelligent Design movement. After reading and studying, my viewpoint came to be that maybe Intelligent Design was not developed enough as a theory to be taught in science class, but that evolution should be taught with a caveat. The Dogma of Naturalism has overtaken the academic community with its philosophy that the physical world exists without interruption from any outside (or supernatural) force. If evidence to the contrary is discovered, it is either ignored or assumed that a natural explanation will be found in the future. The very theory of evolution rests on the fact that there is no force outside of the natural universe and that the natural universe came into existence by a completely random and purposeless series of processes.
Long after the class has ended, I am still very interested in the intersection of religion and science and its practical applications. My dad, an engineer, has also been fascinated by this subject for years. So, after skimming his many books, and reading several summaries of books on amazon, I’m charting a course to gain some understanding of how faith and science interact. Right now, the books I have collected are all on the Christian side of things, so I had better get some other perspectives in there in order for it to be a full learning experience. I hope to blog about this in the months and years to come, but I’m not looking for this subject to dominate my reading. Typically I read 3 or 4 books at a time (although I’ve only been reading for the past 6 months since I finally discovered a good way to use free time), so from now until I’m worn out I’ll be reading a book about this subject at all times.
I decided a good place to start is a book about taking science seriously from the perspective of religion. The first book I will be reading is called A Biblical Case for an Old Earth by David Snoke. Dr. Snoke is an associate professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh, and “licensed to preach” as an elder at his Presbyterian church. I became interested in this book because it is about the theological evidence for the earth as billions of years old. I’ve never heard this case presented thoroughly from someone who believes the Bible is God’s Word, so I’m excited to hear him out. I must say that after reading the few couple of chapters I am somewhat confident that I will turn my back on the idea that was taught to me growing up that the universe is 6-8000 years old. I think that tackling the issue of the age of the earth is one of the first hurdles to finding the scientifically viable explanation for creation that I am seeking.
I would love for whoever is reading this post to continue reading, but regardless I hope to keep up writing about this issue. I would also very much appreciate your comments and disagreements along the way.
First question for you: Is seeking a scientifically viable explanation of creation a worthless pursuit? What if naturalistic evolution was just God’s agent in creation despite the appearance of being purposeless?
We finally found something to debate when we drifted to the subject of evolution. We believed that not only the theory of evolution, but also the philosophy of naturalism was being forced upon schoolchildren as the only viable option. Jordan and I decided to take the stance that alternatives to evolution should be taught alongside evolution; while the other two were arguing that evolution and only evolution should be taught.
We both skimmed several books such as Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and Philip Johnson’s books that started the Intelligent Design movement. After reading and studying, my viewpoint came to be that maybe Intelligent Design was not developed enough as a theory to be taught in science class, but that evolution should be taught with a caveat. The Dogma of Naturalism has overtaken the academic community with its philosophy that the physical world exists without interruption from any outside (or supernatural) force. If evidence to the contrary is discovered, it is either ignored or assumed that a natural explanation will be found in the future. The very theory of evolution rests on the fact that there is no force outside of the natural universe and that the natural universe came into existence by a completely random and purposeless series of processes.
Long after the class has ended, I am still very interested in the intersection of religion and science and its practical applications. My dad, an engineer, has also been fascinated by this subject for years. So, after skimming his many books, and reading several summaries of books on amazon, I’m charting a course to gain some understanding of how faith and science interact. Right now, the books I have collected are all on the Christian side of things, so I had better get some other perspectives in there in order for it to be a full learning experience. I hope to blog about this in the months and years to come, but I’m not looking for this subject to dominate my reading. Typically I read 3 or 4 books at a time (although I’ve only been reading for the past 6 months since I finally discovered a good way to use free time), so from now until I’m worn out I’ll be reading a book about this subject at all times.
I decided a good place to start is a book about taking science seriously from the perspective of religion. The first book I will be reading is called A Biblical Case for an Old Earth by David Snoke. Dr. Snoke is an associate professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh, and “licensed to preach” as an elder at his Presbyterian church. I became interested in this book because it is about the theological evidence for the earth as billions of years old. I’ve never heard this case presented thoroughly from someone who believes the Bible is God’s Word, so I’m excited to hear him out. I must say that after reading the few couple of chapters I am somewhat confident that I will turn my back on the idea that was taught to me growing up that the universe is 6-8000 years old. I think that tackling the issue of the age of the earth is one of the first hurdles to finding the scientifically viable explanation for creation that I am seeking.
I would love for whoever is reading this post to continue reading, but regardless I hope to keep up writing about this issue. I would also very much appreciate your comments and disagreements along the way.
First question for you: Is seeking a scientifically viable explanation of creation a worthless pursuit? What if naturalistic evolution was just God’s agent in creation despite the appearance of being purposeless?
posted by hoose at 6:51 PM
7 comments
