glad to see an evangelical brave enough to enter the arena…just last week saw an article in WSJ about this topic and evangelicals were painted weak to non-existent

Christopher Wiley responded with these thoughts….

“Nice post.  Here are some thoughts.  It seems to me that the influence is thought of as unidirectional—i.e. that evangelicals need to adapt, to accommodate developments in science.  This seems problematic at two levels.  First, scientific knowledge is in a sense provisional.  The Ptolemaic view of the cosmos was the scientific consensus when Galileo made his observations.  The scientific community adapted quickly and the church looked foolish for defending the old view. We need to be careful to not make a similar mistake.  Second, at a deeper level the worldview assumptions of Christianity make science possible.  Should a stronger case be made for the formative role of Christianity in the development of science?  If we made that case wouldn’t it help the relationship?  Can science thrive long term (not merely in a quest for technology—but as a quest of knowledge) without Christianity?  Are you familiar with the work of Stanley Jaki?  Finally, what would a Trinitarian and relational science look like – as opposed to a deistic version (which seems to be the unchristian default position for most Christians)?”

Christopher Wiley

Thanks, Bev and Chris!

Bev - Is there some way I can get that article?  Is it online?

A few responses to Chris…

1. I agree that scientific knowledge is provisional.  But I think theological knowledges is also provisional. Changes occur in both science and theology.  I agree that we need to beware not to connect our theological doctrines too readily to scientific theories.  But I also think we must inevitably connect them if our theology is to make sense.

2. I agree that the worldview assumptions of Christianity provide fertile grounds for science.  But the same is true of Islam.  Several scholars have argued that contemporary science owes a greater debt to Christianity than any other religion. (I’m familiar with Jaki’s work. I met and talked with him about some science and theology issues about a decade ago.)

3. One of the best books exploring Trinitarian theology and science is Sam Powell’s book, Participating in God: Trinity and Creation (2003).  Know of it?

Thanks again!

Tom

Tom,
Thanks of the follow up.  I think you’re right about the influence moving both ways.  I think our doctrine of creation especially is informed by the work of scientists.  I’m thinking of how it seems inevitible that the doctrine that death was introduced to all of creation—and not just to human beings by the Fall—will have to be revisited if we take evolution seriously.  (BTW—how did that become the default position of the Church?—The fact that the Tree of Life was in the garden implies they would need grace to sustain their lives apart from the effects of the Fall.)  No—I’m not familiar with the book you mentioned.  I’ll look it up.  It is the Trinitarian framework that would distinguish what we Christians can do in science from Muslims. (I’m thinking in the realms of meaning and trajectory of inquiry).

Thank you for your thoughtful article. Do you have a paper that you presented to the AAR meeting? Or a podcast/recording?

My biggest request here would be that you would expand your statement on why and on what basis you think Evangelicals will move more to Theistic Evolution rather than some modified special creation.

Bev Mayhew asked me to post this suggested link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487532250568304.html

Evangelicals, Faith and The Life of the Mind

Tom

Christopher,

Regarding your question: the idea of death being introduced into all of creation through the Fall seems to have been the default one in the early Church, but there was an important difference from the later Western/Protestant view. Greek Fathers such as Athanasius believed that humans are “naturally corruptible,” in the sense that we are made from nothing and would return to nothing if left to ourselves. So as you point out, grace was needed from the beginning to maintain us in “incorruption” by uniting us to the Logos. Human sin broke that connection with the Logos, so that nature “took its course.”

Augustine taught the same thing, although he did contribute to exalting our picture of Adam and Eve’s unfallen condition and providing a more “static” account of human perfection. Through the Middle Ages Western theologians taught that unfallen humans had needed a “donum superadditum”—an extra gift of grace above and beyond the “natural” goodness of their created natures—in order to have fellowship with God and eternal life. The Protestant Reformers rejected this idea (you can see this particularly clearly in Calvin), arguing that unfallen humans had everything they needed simply by virtue of their good created natures. Like so many of the Reformers’ arguments, this could claim to be following a trajectory started by Augustine but at the same time sharply contradicted what Augustine actually taught.

Sorry for the long lecture. This is a point of interest to me!

For the Eastern Orthodox view of this, John Meyendorff’s _Byzantine Theology_ (which I’ve just been reading) is very good.

I like how you mentioned the fact that not every evangelical or scientist for that matter is going to agree on every item on the list. We all come from different backgrounds and systems of belief. I believe that Theologians sometimes get too defensive of their own beliefs and hold them to be absolute truth. The same goes for the scientific community as well. I think as you in the aspect of science and theology making progress in the future. We just need to remember that no one is going to have all the answers and on that aspect we must all agree. My own belief is that science confirms and supports a divine creator, whether it be through theistic evolution or the belief that God is presently active- to me that is not a salvation issue or of anything importance that I myself wish to spend the time and energy arguing about.

Humility is a tricky virtue. It seems that few can attain it, and even then, a sense of false humility may taint their character. Many arguments are spurred by bruised egos and false pretenses. If only true humility can be gained, then these arguments would likely take a more beneficial turn.

Being a mother, my children come home telling me about some of the science they learn at school and it conflicts with what I try to teach my children about God. This is frustrating to me, but I know that it is difficult for the teachers as well. I know that some of their teachers are Christian, but they have to teach science from more of the evolutionary point of view. This is an ongoing problem for many to combine the theology and science.