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:
I have a hard time with the hard core atheist. when I read some of their books or quotes I get tired head (meaning they bog my head down with the intense negativity). That's all I got.
yeah, i have a feeling i would too, all I can think of is reading a book like richard dawkins' God Delusion concurrently with commentary from scot mcknight or something. but then again, if i'm reading it just to refute it, am i truly gaining the perspective of an atheist? maybe i don't really want that perspective anyway.
hoose couple things to point out for yer brain to pick on...
Part of the problem with the question of evolution, and i dont know if you addressed this in your debate class, was that it is biting off more than it can chew in some sense. The evolution of species describes the how of the process but never was inteded by Darwin himself to presume to know the intial WHO or WHy but he felt he was explaining the how. SO how is it that we have gotten to a point where "science" can now answer philosophical/epistemological questions of meaning and existence by telling us everything is random, indifferent, etc?
2) In thinking about this book your reading and how science/faith relate etc we might do well to be careful only to speak where the Bible speaks and respectfully be quiet at other moments. I'm not sure (Biblically) how you could prove an old earth/young earth bc much of the Bible is more focused on the person of God himself and the significance of that so let me know what this homey does with that...
good points bslice (broun or somebody i don't know?)
First off, my current understanding is that proponents of naturalistic evolution necessitate the processes that gave birth to human beings to be "random and purposeless". This seems to conflict with a view of a God by Whom "all things are held together" By saying there was neither purpose nor design and that evolution is necessarily random, the "who" is quite obviously "nobody". Science is completely inadequate to answer the "who" question, I agree. But I am interested in where science points to a "who" rather than a "nobody", whether or not we know from science "who" that is.
In regards to your second point, I think we would probably agree. I'm more interested that the Bible does not contradict science. Most people who hold to the Young earth view seem to ignore many discoveries about the age of the earth that are almost universally held among scientists. I'm not so sure that the Bible can "prove" an old earth, but I am interested to see that it allows for it.
as someone with a physics background, i'm pretty convinced that the universe is closer to the neighborhood of 15 billion years old than 10 or so thousand. I'm also pretty unimpressed with every bit of creation "science" that I've been exposed to.
instead of taking the accepted scientific theories that we are offended by, why don't we just take them for what they are and learn from them interesting things about our world and even our God? does the age of the universe really challenge people's faith so much? it's a change of paradigm, but that's something that the Church could use more often anyways. would our God be unable to create a universe through a big bang, or life through evolution? why not?
sometimes I feel like we've traveled back in time and we're trying to excommunicate and lynch the scientists who are telling us the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.
from my lawn chair the sun does revolve around the earth. i can watch it rise in the morning and fall in the evening, and i know for a fact that i'm not moving. but when viewed from a different frame of reference, I'm wrong.
I think there is a good deal of overlap between these ideas and the things that Matt and Andrew brought up on Witless Brevity:
http://witlessbrevity.blogspot.com/2007/01/truth.html
Matt and Andrew have a point that I am now going to hijack and take in a different direction: Why must the church cling to her old paradigms and assume that no one else can know things about our origins (and other stuff too)? are we that terrified of change? what do we have to lose anyways, our pride? shouldn't we be grateful for a chance to unload some pride, to let someone else teach us something that we can learn in humility?
all of this is not to say that these are stupid questions or a waste of time, and i would imagine that there is good science being done somewhere with regards to these questions. my objection is that it seems that we are so attached to a certain way of interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis and when that interpretation is challenged we all grab shovels and dig foxholes with the hopes that the "enemy" will just go away, or worse we assault the "enemy" with the hopes that we might kill them. I wish we would spend less time militantly defending our interpretations and spend more time militantly defending justice and fighting poverty.
I myself struggled a lot with questions about the interface between religion and science a number of years ago, and I read several books. i think these were the best:
The First Three Minutes by Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg - still one of the best, most accessible books about the Big Bang
Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald L. Schroeder, a Jewish physicist
God, Time and Stephen Hawking by David Wilkinson, British Astronomer - I think I stole the example of Copernicus from this book, although if I remember correctly he develops it much more fully
i'm currently more interested in the ways in which science illuminates theology, e.g. the way in which quarks remind me of the trinitarian community or the way in which the nuclear strong force models the interplay between intimacy and individuation.
Sam is our resident biologist at Witless Brevity, I would like to hear what he has to say.
cabe, awesome points, i haven't been online in several days, but i wanted to let you know i saw it and process a bit more before I respond. I've been reading pretty incredible things in this book on Old Earth Theology and I'm looking forward to sharing them soon. For now I will just say this, I find it interesting that some early church fathers had no problem with the idea of an Billions of Years Old Earth before all of the evidence emerged in the past few centuries.
cabe, some of the stuff i'm reading about concerns physics and i would love to get a few explanations of these things in the coming weeks, i'm looking forward to it
What up Steve!
Post a Comment
<< Home