Can Theology and Science Make Peace in the Age of Darwin? / Brent Henderson (Gainsville, FL)

From Dave:

Here's some more background on Brent's comment that I highlighted in Monday's post. I'll be eager to hear your thoughts!

I grew up in a small town in rural Florida in a loving family strongly committed to evangelical Christianity. Much of my teen years were spent attending the same independent evangelical church, going on short-term mission trips, singing in praise bands, and attending youth group. Over all, I’m really thankful for this upbringing (especially the loving family part), even if now I might be critical of some of it. Part of what I’d be most critical of today is the way the faith I was raised with was tightly bound with certain cultural worldviews, including conservative politics and a strong rejection of scientific and intellectual authority, especially when it came to evolution and its explanations for the history of life on earth. Among other things, I had learned that EVILution was untrue, atheistic, and had led directly to the Holocaust. I also learned a lot about ‘alternatives’ to evolution that were faithful to the Biblical narrative: evidence for a global flood, dinosaur-human co-habitation, the recent age of the earth, etc. I recall reciting some of these arguments against evolution and for Creationism forcefully to my tenth grade earth sciences teacher (who, I now think, must be a saint given the kind and patient way she responded).

Like a lot of evangelikids (I’m a linguist, I’m allowed to coin new words), I experienced quite a bit of cognitive dissonance when I got out into the world a bit. My belief in these things were certain and unchallenged until I entered college and started to learn more about science. For one, I learned that I loved it and wanted to do science for the rest of my life. I also learned that the evidence for the overall picture of the history of life and the universe that science has given us over the past couple of centuries is overwhelming. While some of the details are unknown and other parts are a little fuzzy, it is clear that the universe is at least 14 billion years old, that earth has only been around for about 4.5 of those billions, and that during that time life on earth has evolved from a few simple kinds of organisms to all the complex and varied forms of life we see today through a process of gradual evolution.

Surprisingly, unlike others I know, validating science like this never shook my faith a bit. Nor did it push me into the unreasonable position of rejecting science altogether. It simply created an exciting puzzle. I knew my faith was based on something close to the truth. And now I knew science’s conclusions were close to the truth. I think maybe I just thought that Jesus would never want me to reject any truth, and that if both of these things were ways to approach the truth, they must fit together somehow.

All that led to what has become passion interest for me. A lot of my spare time is devoting to reading about science and theology and how they can work together. I’ve read with interest the insightful works of John Polkinghorne, John Haught, Terence Nichols, Ian Barbour, Teilhard de Chardin, and others. I’ve also been delighted to see a number of Christian scientists (small ‘s’) engage this topic as well, including Darrel Falk, Ken Miller, Karl Giberson, and the new head of the National Institutes of Health and chief decoder of the human genome Francis Collins. And of course, I’ve had dozens of great conversations with students, scientists, pastors, friends, and family about this topic.

Yet at times I’ve also gotten frustrated that the general conversation on science and theology doesn’t seem to have changed much since I was a high school kid. Most evangelicals still reject evolution.  A March 2007 Newsweek poll showed 48% of Americans believe God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so;” the religiously-motivated continually try to get creation ‘science’ taught in public schools through legislative means; in a few weeks there’ll be a ‘creation vs. evolution’ conference at a Baptist church not far from me in which various creationists will present evidence against evolution. No theistic evolutionists have been invited.

Perhaps just as frustrating is that many of the most thoughtful Christians I know simply don’t seem to think this is an issue that merits much attention. I commonly hear them say that whether evolution is true or not doesn’t affect one’s faith. I couldn’t disagree more. I’m convinced that seeking the truth about creation is a crucial part of seeking the truth about our place in it and about its Creator. As John Haught likes to say, we can’t think about God the same way after Darwin as we did before. Usually, I get the response that caring for the earth or fighting for social justice are just way more important issues to focus on (a point I often concede, though I’m not sure that’s the right way to compare things).

A series of lectures is starting this Monday at the Christian Studies Center here in Gainesville, FL (where I’m an assistant professor in linguistics at the University of Florida) that will focus on various questions that arise when we consider ‘Science and Worldview.’ I’m scheduled to give the second lecture, ‘Can Science and Theology Make Peace in the Age of Darwin?’ In that lecture, I hope to paint a picture of a worldview in which Christians can take their faith and the Bible seriously while also recognizing the importance and truth-seeking nature of the scientific enterprise. I have to admit, I’m a bit nervous, though I’m not sure exactly why. Perhaps I’m nervous I’ll be branded a heretic by some of the more conservative attendees? Or perhaps I’m nervous about the conversation getting dragged down into the usual arguments about the evils of evolution or its accuracy? Maybe I’m just nervous some of my colleagues will come?

But I’m interested to know what the thoughtful crowd here thinks. Why do you think this has been such a difficult conversation for Christians to have? Do you think science is at all important for faith to consider, or am I way off-base on that? Is this something you’re dealing with to? I’ll be sure to report back after the talk next week to let you know how it went.

 

 

Comments

[brian]

Brent: I wish you the very very best as you give your talk. I am nervous for you that, indeed, the conversation will end up proceeding along the all too typical lines, and yet hopeful that the experiences you share will connect with everyone on (at least, or perhaps at most!?) a deeply human level. Which is to say, I hope you can inject something of your personal journey into the presentation--as you do in the post above--because this is, I think, a disarming thing to do in any setting.

I don't think the difficulty involved with this question is particularly "Christian" in any way, i.e., I don't think there's anything inherent to Christianity qua Christianity that makes the evolution/creationism argument what it is. Rather, it's a simultaneously complicated and simple issue of cultural identity, of language games and group cohesion and so on (cf. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--what is it "really about"?!), and these "battles" can never be "won" by head on confrontations, only by minute and repeated shifts in small settings--like the one you are about to enter. As a fist-pumping (and admittedly too-often militant) fan of science, including the theory of evolution, I wish you every good thing for your local conversation. Thanks for the post, -b

[brian]

Oh, and one more thing, if don't mind; this statement really stuck out to me:
"...many of the most thoughtful Christians I know simply don’t seem to think this is an issue that merits much attention. I commonly hear them say that whether evolution is true or not doesn’t affect one’s faith. I couldn’t disagree more. I’m convinced that seeking the truth about creation is a crucial part of seeking the truth about our place in it and about its Creator."
This has been my experience as well, and I deeply agree with your last sentence here. There's a kind of weird fideism behind which many otherwise thoughtful people hide on issues like this. I have many of my own stories toward this end, from my own academic setting, but I'll just stop now.

[Jeff]

The hardest part, to me, about this issue is the objective nature of the scientific process. Of course, I am aware there is also a human side to science and scientists have been wrong before, yada, yada, yada.

But- as far as I can tell, essentially all serious science that even touches the issue of origins is operating on the unquestioned assumption that evolution is true. And it seems, with objections only coming from religious groups, that it is unquestionably being borne out as true.

That is, as far as all real science is concerned, Evolution is objectively true fact. Which means that to deny evolution, you have to basically reject all mainstream science.

This is why young earth creationism and ID seems so insane to scientists. If it isn't true, a huge chunk of modern science is a giant, insane delusion. Not slightly off, not a little bit wrong- incredibly deluded.

I think what many YECs and IDers are unaware of is the incredible scale of the claim they are making. And, missionally speaking, how profoundly alienating this claim is for anyone in a major science field.

This isn't to say that YECs and IDers don't have the right to make their case. What I think I want to help them understand is how truly audacious it is.

[Jeff]

Not that that really speaks to the heart of your post, I think i might just have had something to get off my chest.. ;)

[Ian P]

Dear Brett,

Good luck with your lecture. This is my first post on this blog, but this topic has been of interest to me for a while, so here goes ...

As a scientist and a Christian myself, it seems to me that both Christians and Scientists are seeking "truth", but from different initial axiomatic positions. For example, our observations in the world can be interpreted either in the light of the statement that there is no external causative agent, or from the statement that God is the Creator. In addition, we agree on unspoken rules about what constitutes acceptable "procedure"; for example, science proceeds via the testing of hypotheses, whereas Faith does not require proof. We tend to go forward without really questioning these assumptions, and perhaps the confrontations between science and faith come about when we don't communicate our underlying and unspoken assumptions from which we derive all our conclusions.

In addition, I like to think that science excels at addressing certain types of question which are amenable to the scientific method (notwithstanding the underlying assumptions involved), whereas the realm of faith is not really amenable to investigation by the scientific method. When physicists are asked to investigate such questions, they are sometimes dismissed as "metaphysics".

In order to strive for better communication, perhaps we should start by discussing and learning what our assumptions are, and how they differ, rather than debating the conclusions derived from differing assumptions.

Just some thoughts, for what they are worth ...

[Otto]

I also wish you a great lecture on this topic, that everyone there would be open to exploring the truth with awe. Nature is awe-inspiring, like God is.

I only have another minute before I get kicked out of this coffee shop... but when I hear about evolution versus creation, I wonder about this... If we look at all the different models of automobiles created by mankind, nobody would disagree that that cars have "evolved" from the model T until the cars of today. Yet we all know that cars haven't evolved by themselves, that there was lots of design and engineering involved too. So, evolution and creation (i.e. design) aren't mutually exclusive!!

Just a random thought :)

[Brian Odom]

Thanks for the great thoughts, Brent.

It reminds me of what someone (you, I think) said on an earlier post:
"But if we allow science (evolution in particular) to really shape our faith, we can go so much further. If God created via evolution, the process and history of life (and the universe) should reflect his character as reflected in Jesus. And I think it does."

And, to answer one of your questions...I think you're just nervous that your colleagues will show up. :)

[Jon]

I would argue that understanding the creation is useful and interesting and should be pursued if that is your calling. I guess the reason why I choose to not get too involved in this conversation is that I cannot imagine getting much from it independent of the conclusion. I'm not a young earth creationist but I sort of have my doubts about the current state of evolutionary theory. The source of most of my doubts rest in the sense that I have that most scientists don't fully understand the limits of empiricism and the understanding that sometimes (not all the time) logic should be applied when the empirical data seems unreliable (or even when it seems fine but you cannot possibly know your margin of error). In the end I simply don't worry too much about it. I believe that God is responsible for creating the world and the means by which he did are a mystery to me and everyone else for that matter.

You're a braver person than I am for wandering into this topic. I would suggest reading as many high level critiques of empiricism as you can find and also anything that deals with the analysis of the problems inherent in asserting the predictive properties of theories. Not sure if that would help but it might give you a better idea of what I'm talking about at least :)

Good luck!

[Brent]

Thanks for the support, brian. If I could share my most striking story about that fideism...I knew a guy who studied biology and ecology at a great university. He was a Christian, yet affirmed evolution. Then he was called to become a pastor. Almost immediately after, he told me was now having 'doubts' about whether or not Darwinism might be true. That was one of the first things that tipped me off to what a huge issue this is in our culture.

[Brent]

Thanks, Ian. I think you are right about your early statement there about axiomatic positions. Recently I heard a talk by a science historian who thinks that either you think the world has purpose or you do not and that there's just no way to argue for either of those positions from science.

We clearly all have to do a better job of distinguishing between scientific theories and our metaphysical interpretations of those theories (being they theistic or atheistic). Thanks!

[Vinceation]

Brent, what a cool opportunity (and so up your alley)! I'm praying God blesses you with an awesome discussion and great relationships.

[steven hamilton]

my first and very provocative thought is that what makes people react badly and get all emotional and upset in talking about evolution is that you are touching one of their idols. when i touch people's idols, they react badly, strike out at me, and move to protect their idol.

[Brent]

That's an interesting thought. What exactly do you think the idol is in this case?

[steven hamilton]

fear? (maybe residual from nightmares of planet of the apes - old school charlton heston type)

seriously, as we have discussed here before, anything that de-centers Jesus becomes an idol. so fear, maybe, but good things can become idols as well (especially -isms), so creationism. maybe, fear of being wrong.

[Vinceation]

I think you're definitely on to something there Steven

[Luke]

I think you're onto something, also. In this case, speaking only from my own limited perspective, I'd guess that the idol in question is the idea of Rightness. For many raised in a standard American Christian way, we are the bearers of The Truth. And if we go changing the way we read "on the 7th day", for example, then what are we saying about the nature of Truth? Could we be wrong? Can we change our mind on this, after so many years?

Of course, good, skeptical Christian intellectual pursuit, which requires a bit of tolerance for discovery and re-factoring, sometimes gets tossed out with the bathwater, because Defending the Truth Against Those Bad People Out There (woah, did I become A.A. Milne?) is what we were put on earth to do, right?

That being said, there is an equal conceit/idolatry/etc on the science side also. Certainly we've known fans of science who would say that those hard-to-measure, invisible type things like God must be relegated to myth and story because Science, the Five Senses, etc are the final arbiters of what is real. Therefore clear thinking realism = science = atheism, on that side of the coin.

So where does that leave us?

I'd like to think that science is really good at telling us about the things we can see and measure. I'm a fan. It also seems like there might be stuff that science isn't so great at quantifying, because those things are out side of the 5-senses lens.

Is that why besides science, most people recognize things like art, language, and even religious studies as valid pursuits?

[Brent]

While I think this idea of idolatry might play a role in some cases, I'm convinced that the bigger problem here has to do with our modern worldview (which is largely defined by modern science and the reformed view of God) and the idea of a purposeful universe.

Since the 17th century, we've mostly viewed nature as a great machine whose workings we have to discover. We've also viewed God as the Chief Designer of that machine, wholly outside of nature and only interacting with it out of his own free will. But what Darwin did was show us that evolution can be explained by wholly natural processes that are to a large extent random and 'by chance.' No room for a designer there. No machine whose mathematical laws we can discover.

In short, Darwin eliminates the final vestiges of God (and therefore, any purpose nature might have) from our mechanical worldview. The only options are to either (1) cling to purpose in some small way like Intelligent Design people do; (2) reject Darwin altogether like Creation 'Science' people do; (3) reject God altogether like metaphyisical naturalists do; or (4) change our entire worldview.

Choice #4 is the toughest, but I'm convinced it is the only option with any hope of moving us forward. This is largely what I'll be talking about in my lecture Monday.

[Brent]

Thanks, Jon. I guess I would challenge your imagination a bit :) I've really gotten a lot out of working through some of the big issues that come up with this topic. It's not a stretch to say it has radically changed my entire view of God and Creation.I don't believe we can reason from science to God, but I do think science can inform our theology, pointing us toward certain conclusions about God's character as Creator.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'empiricism.' If you are just talking about the limits of science, then I'm there with you. And I do think the issue of limits is increasingly recognized in the sciences, especially in physics, as well as in theology.

Thanks for the luck!

[Ryan NYC]

Brent, you'll kick a$$ in the lecture. You know about it and care too much about it for it to go any other way. I'll be praying that you perform to the top of your ability, that it is well received by all and that good discussion and other 'fruit' comes from it.

Can't wait to hear the follow-up!

[Holly]

Brent, I agree with Brian that it could be helpful to share some of your story with people. It certainly prepared me to hear what you had to say about Evolution. Your great strength may be that you love God and are willing to change your worldview to accommodate who He truly is. This approach feels like an invitation, as opposed to a challenge that we have to either fight or give into.

Interestingly (and ironically), I think Christians may have been taking the words of a few scientists without realizing it. Those scientists (and they may be in the minority -- I don't know) who draw metaphysical conclusions sometimes proclaim that accepting Science means one must reject faith. And the Christian response can be, "Well, screw Science then." For quite a while, I don't know that it ever occurred to me that rejecting their philosophy, not their science, was an option!

Though Science is not my calling (at least as far as I can tell right now), I look forward to hearing what truths you and like-minded people discover.

[Luke]

Dig it. I'm really enjoying your posts on this. I think we're on the same page that people are largely given an either/or choice of science or faith, and wanting to see progress towards that best thing. Thanks for being good at this.

[Jon]

I do mean the limits of science but also of our own observations in general. I'm not sure if I can explain it without an example and this is long (sorry) and quoted from an economist named Murray Rothbard:

"Suppose a theory asserts that a certain policy will cure a depression. The government, obedient to the theory, puts the policy into effect. The depression is not cured. The critics and advocates of the theory now leap to the fore with interpretations. The critics say that failure proves the theory incorrect. The advocates say that the government erred in not pursuing the theory boldly enough, and that what is needed is stronger measures in the same direction. Now the point is that empirically there is no possible way of deciding between them. Where is the empirical “test” to resolve the debate? How can the government rationally decide upon its next step? Clearly, the only possible way of resolving the issue is in the realm of pure theory—by examining the conflicting premises and chains of reasoning."

This reasoning is at the heart of what I'm speaking to. I realize that it's not on point but I don't think anyone outside of a particular school of economics speaks to the reasoning I favor very well. So I hope this makes some sense.

That being said I think that evolution and the nature of creation are interesting subjects to be studied (without worrying about the conclusions too much). I've found that I've learned a lot about God from studying math, computer science, and related topics so I don't doubt that your study is useful for you. I'm just not so sure debating the merits of a theory is a very useful for me.

Again best of luck to you!

[Otto]

I'm with you on the fear. I think it's also in a way an idol. Maybe in the past idols were physical structures, but now as we've evolved they are more often mental structures.

But as far as fear, I know when I'm being influenced by fear that it's definitely from Satan. If we can say that God is love, then the flip side is that Satan is fear.

[winston tyau]

Brent good understanding of the issues, god bless you in your lectures, in as much as I wish was able to attend i would. what is it best is that we can pray for your delivery of such important notes as to the spirit to direct you. God bless.

one note check out a book in the scientific journey to the universe discourses on creation called the "urantia" book, examine it in the local library.

[Ray Maldonado]

When you say, "now i know...", considering that science is based on empirical data as one of its cornerstones, how do you know for certain that science has "figured it out"? I am not a scientist like you. I guess I want to give science the benefit of the doubt, it is just that science has not always been right. Still learning brother. Ray from Chicago's Urban Vineyard

[Maurice Ward]

Hi Brent

Your question assumes Theology and Science are not at peace. I believe they are. You cannot divorce Science and Theology.

People try to make it Theology versus Science to forward their world views. Is not theology a science?
I thought 'ology' meant "the study of".

Worldviews are where peace needs to be found. Science, including Theology, can be used to argue for any world view.

Data is not truth. All evidence must be interpreted.
Presuppositions are based on belief systems. You can use the same data to come to different conclusions, if you have different presuppositions.

I think it would be informative to discuss how biblical truth has become myth and scientific theories have become absolute truth.

Biblical Truth -> Science -> Myth
Theory -> Science -> Absolute Truth

Does this mean that Science is God?

[Robocop]

Might it be possible for those of us who are interested to get the text of the talk?