Christians Care about Science and Theology

Tom,

Quite a few years back I spent some time studying creation science. I found that generally speaking Christians who believed in evolution gave in to the evolutionists because they didn’t know how to answer the tough questions. One quick example, honest scientists will admit that the dating techniques (potassium/argon, etc.) for things such as moon rocks are greatly flawed. There are also great problems with carbon dating. Many hard core evolutionists don’t want to give an inch to creationists because then they would have to admit there is a God, and they don’t want to do that. Creation science has much to teach the Church if people will do their homework.

I hope I’m not being over-bearing, but here are my thoughts:

#2 Christians should not reflect together on how best to interpret biblical passages in light of established scientific theories, instead, if the Bible is our final authority on all matters of faith and practice (as it should be), Christians should relect together on how best to interpret established scientific theories in light of biblical passages.  If science does not agree with the Bible, then science needs to be refigured.  For example: evolution.

#3 Don’t get me wrong here, I believe there are chemical imbalances and other legitimate ailments…but, when psychology states, “it’s not your fault, it’s your environment,” and the Bible says, “take responsibility for your sin, repent, and follow Jesus,” we have to ask which religious view will we follow?

#6 Just a quick comment here, while the Bible is not a scientific book per se, it is scientifically accurate.

#9 If you are suggesting that we interpret scientific “conclusions” through a biblical perspective, then I agree with you.  I watch these programs that show how wonderful nature is and then they say it was an accident of evolution…I say, “Hogwash! God, you’re the coolest!  That is just amazing what you did!”

#10 God is still intimately involved in creation.  We participate, sure, but God still has the final say as the author and giver of all life.  People and animals don’t create life.  We just provide the basic units for life (given originally by God).  God gives that stuff called life…we don’t even know what life is.

Peter Colyer responds…

Thomas

Last month I was addressing a seminar of Baptist ministers on “The
apologetic advantages of science”. I emphasized that science was not a
specialist interest, and ministers should be knowledgable about
scientific thinking. In much briefer terms than yours, I gave three
reasons for this:

1. Belief in creation. Whatever a Christian belief in creation means in
detail, we believe that the world scientifically explained should be
consistent with our belief in God.

2. Science is used by some well-known atheists in their arguments
against belief. This is of course inconsistent with point 1, and
Christians should address this.

3. At least in the UK, point 2 is very well known and publicised – in
the press, TV programmes, etc. All church members and teenagers at
school are aware of the (mis)use of science in atheistic argument. So it
should be a real issue for preachers and pastors.

All best wishes. Keep up the good work!

Peter Colyer
Regent’s Park College, Oxford, UK

Harold Lindsell said, “ Dr. Ramm lets science stand over scripture and God. So the Bible is not normative.” (p. 123 of Dorrien, Remaking Evangelicalism). Lindsell believed the Bible must govern what science is allowed to say rather than allowing science to govern what the Bible is allowed to say. There is merit in wanting to view the world through the lens of biblical teaching but is the issue so monodirectional? If we follow Lindsell then would not have to conclude that the biblical writers were simply wrong when they promulgated a geocentric view of the earth? The Bible says, “the sun stood still” (Josh. 10:13) and that the sun rises and “goes down” (Josh. 23:14; 2 Sam. 2:24).

Should we take such texts to teach the truth? Christians at the time of Galileo certainly understood the texts this way which is why they said the “science” of Copernicus could not be right—they believed that whatever the Bible taught was scientifically correct. However, the majority of those who assert that the Bible is without error do not interpret these biblical texts to be in conflict with science. Rather, contemporary proponents of this approach claim that such texts are written “from a human perspective”. The Psalmist declares that “the earth is firmly established, it shall not be moved” (93:1). The biblical writer believed that the earth does not move, rather the sun moves. However, most evangelicals today believe the earth revolves around the sun. But on what grounds do they reject or reinterpret biblical teaching? Are they letting science dictate what the Bible is allowed to say is factually correct? On this point

I believe Nicholas Wolterstorff has put it well:
“It is clear that if the psalmist was speaking literally at this point, he was affirming geocentrism. But contemporary inerrantists are not geocentricists; they believe that geocentrism is false. Accordingly, they look for some non-literal interpretation of the psalmist’s words which won’t saddle him with a false geocentric cosmology. Yet they also go along with the standard historical view that most ancient persons were geocentricists….Nonetheless, the biblical writer, so the inerrantists say, was not speaking literally.

What makes them think not? Well, they don’t base their conclusion on extensive research into the thought-patterns of ancient Hebrews. They haven’t discovered a pocket of avant-garde solar-centricists among the ancient Hebrews, of which the psalmist was a member….Instead, their rejection of a literal interpretation is motivated by their conviction that if the author had been speaking literally, he would have said what is false.”
Why do those who claim that we must always allow the Bible to tell us what is scientifically correct not practice what they preach when it comes to geocentrism? Why do they not take these texts literally? I suggest it because of the scientific evidence that geocentrism is false. They accept the modern scientific account that the earth does move on its axis and revolves around the sun. Hence, they are using science to inform the scripture as to what is true and what is false, at least in these passages.

Charles Hodge, was professor of theology at Princeton Seminary in the early 1900’s and one of the Calvinist leaders who shaped evangelicalism in America in the 20’th century (I read his theology in college as a textbook). He is absolutely revered by conservative evangelicals for his stance on biblical inerrancy and other doctrines. He said that the Bible never contradicts “facts” of the world even though our particular interpretations of the bible may conflict with the facts. “Science has in many things taught the Church how to understand the Scriptures. The Bible was for ages understood and explained according to the Ptolemaic system …it is now explained without doing the least violence to its language, according to the Copernican system. . . . If geologists finally prove that it has existed for myriads of ages it will be found that the first chapter of Genesis is in full accord with the facts. . . .It may cost the Church a severe struggle to give up one interpretation and adopt another, as it did in the seventeenth century.” (Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1, 1901, pages 170-1.).

Having said this I also want to say that there is a danger of scientism—that science tells us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help our scientific method. Scientists are humans and are thus both finite and fallible. Christians have the right to question particular claims made by scientists. For example, the so-called neurotheology which tends to be reductionistic is questioned on a number of grounds even by non religious scientists. For me, the relationship between biblical interpretation and any other discipline is reciprocal.

Tom,

I very much appreciate this post.  I’d like to use a good deal of the 10 points in my Science, Technology and Society college course.  I don’t think I would add much to your list except to say that science cannot ever tell us what to do – science can only provide current data for analysis and predictions based on the choices we make.  In other words, science cannot replace our own ethical or moral decisions.  Science can help answer the question about what will happen if we continue to burn the Amazon rainforest but it cannot tell us what decision to choose.  Those decisions must be made on a creation ethic in light of socio-economic, ethical (and theological) concerns as well as the scientific analysis and ramifications.

This limited view of science might address some of the concerns reflected in the above comments.  We can learn lots through science about how the human brain functions and that knowledge will inform our decisions but never tell us the most ethical choice to make.  The choice is contingent on our own moral code and theological metric.  I have to object to the earlier comment (posted under Mark): “Science approves the pornography industry.”  That simply is not true.  Scientists may make statements about brain chemistry, etc. in that context but any pronouncement about the “rightness or wrongness” of pornography is not scientific.  Any scientist who “approves” pornography does so based on a personal ethic.

And thus back to title of your post: Science and Theology.  It takes both (and may I suggest other ways of knowing too) to live an informed life that honors God in the decisions that we make.

I liked this article a great deal and it gives a great deal of thought to take to a church to encourage them to consider the part science plays in their life.  In No. 2 you made the statement that “Christians should reflect together. . ” and this is important, but the reflecting should be more that just a “yes” session where every agrees with everyone else and all is wonderful.  Someone must be willing to play “devil’s advocate” and ask the hard questions, or at least make sure they are on the table. My problem with the blog is the assumption that the Bible is the final authority and many people who are into science do not believe the Bible has that kind of credibility.  That is the arena where I find myself most uncomfortable, when the foundations do not match.  How can one discuss religion and science and not use the Bible?

Very well said, I think these are wonderful reasons for relating how science and theology coincide.

One thing that i found interesting is the “Creation Care” part, we are called to take care of God’s work, and I believe that in order to do so appropriately there will be science involved, He did not give us clear-cut ways to do so, therefore it is by whatever means we have we are called to use and know to keep our world safe/‘operational’.

I have a slight problem with why there is such a big issue between theology in science. Scientists study what they can see, and seek to find/understand what they don’t, whereas theologians expand on what they believe (typically), I suppose i might not have experienced their debates firsthand, regardless i find it rather funny.

This was a good blog post on starting the conversation for Christians to view science. Well more in the sense of Christians should start introducing science into the conversation. If Christianity is to be influential in the world today, it cannot dismiss everything going on in the world. Science provides some strong evidence of different happenings in the world. If we cannot reconcile these findings in our faith, or with our faith there is a problem. Sure there will be points where science may clash with what we believe, but we do need to wrestle with these issues.
However, again this article is great and provides some great ideas n why christians should pay more attention to science.

In H. Ray Dunning’s book Grace, Faith, & Holiness he brings up a great point when dealing with this issue.  His point is the creation account presented to us in Genesis is not a scientific or actual account.  This being said, we shouldn’t look at it this way!  Ancient writings often used poetry or myths to get a point accross.  I believe this account of creation we have today was merely a response to the many God’s of the day.  This being said, we should approach the theological-scientific relationship with this mindset.  The Bible can spread insight into this issue, but it is not dertemative of a scientific account of creation.

I especially think that number 5, cultural engagement, is an important one. It is disappointing to me when I see Christians who are totally ignorant about science and unwilling to converse with the scientific community. We should recognize the need for us to be in dialogue with those in our culture who have a lot to tell us about scientific issues. The point is not that we become good scientists or understand every little detail. Our goal should be to better understand some of the ways of creation in order know God more fully. While doing that, we can also become more relevant and reasonable within our culture.

This blog does provide a good starting list for why Christians should care about science. Christians should care about the natural world because, as stated in reason 1, it is God’s creation, and as such it reflects certain characteristics about God. Christians are given a charge to take care of the earth (Genesis 1). And in doing so they will discover aspects of God they could get from no other source (Psalm 19:1-4).
One issue I might take with this blog post is that it seems to say that only those who hold the big bang, evolution, etc. to be true are the only real scientists. What about those real Christian scientists (I’m not referring to the Christian science church) who believe the scientific evidence points to a literal 6 day creation and to a literal global flood? (and I’m not referring to Ken Ham on this point either).

I recognize that for many the relation of science and faith can be a controversial issue.  However, I would also contend that Christians should care about science.  I think in general some good points are made, although it is easy enough to see how someone can take certain aspects of any one of them and run with it to the extreme to take issue.  In touching just one aspect, science does have a loud voice in the cultural battlefield.  Perhaps that is the reason Christians have felt pressured into trying to adapt certain scientific theories into harmony with scriptural accounts.  Unfortunately my feeling is that much of what is proposed comes from certain agendas.  So with the underwhelming supporting evidence of some things that are styled “science” I am just not inclined to change my position on issues like Creation.  I have always said, if there is a perceived conflict between science and scripture, then we just don’t have enough information at this present time!

Tom,

You wrote, “The Christian ignorant about science is easily sidelined or even cut off from cultural conversations about the common good. To be loving citizens who care about God’s work in the world includes conversing with and learning from scientific communities.”

Something that tends to be a limiter for people joining conversations is not necessarily a lack of knowledge, but an unwillingness to ask questions with an anticipation for dialogue. For some Christians, people are turned off from hearing their input as a result of an attitude bent towards proving something rather than having an actual conversation. This is not unique to Christians, it is hard to have a conversation about any topic with anyone who has an agenda that does not include an open mind; however, God doesn’t need someone to defend him as much as he wants his creation to exhibit community.

I appreciate this piece in the way it lays “the science-and-theology” conversation out on the table.  No doubt, this is an important conversation in which the church needs to be engaged.  Those outside the church certainly are, so we would be remiss if we failed to understand the perspectives of the cultures and societies within which we minister.  For me, the debate has not been science versus theology.  In fact, I am fascinated by the endless discoveries made within the field of science.  I do often question, however, the interpretation of those discoveries.  In a field in which objectivity is essential, it seems that each scientist’s personal perceptions and presuppositions determine how the information from each discovery is used.  Many times, it seems, this information is used to try and disprove the existence of God (at least that is what the media presents) which, in my opinion, is only helping to drive the wedge between science and theology even deeper. 
For me, these discoveries only go to show the complexity of God, and the magnificence with which God created the earth and its inhabitants.  The nature of God is certainly evident in all that God has created, and science plays a valuable role in helping to reveal some of that beautiful, yet complex nature.

I think your points are well-written and researched. About half way through your blog, I began thinking about what the pastor at my church says frequently about the “new creation” and how we are called to care for the earth in preparation for the new creation. We don’t ignore the earth; we maintain it. We can’t ignore science, either. To admit that scientist have understood how natural processes work, doesn’t take God out of creation. God intricately designed the world and all that is within it. I love how you said that there are co-creators. It opens up a deeper understanding of science in a relational way. I also thought that probably your best point is that both theology and science live by faith. Science thinks that they have it all figured out and then there is a new discovery. You never hear that they were “wrong” but that they are learning. The same is true with theology. We can’t have everything figured out. We can only understand as much as God has revealed to us as in the same way as scientific discovery.

I am intrigued, always, about people who get to the point where they are set in their ways and thoughts because when they approach new thoughts and knowledge they try to find holes in it.  When having a Christian conversation it often can immediately jump to, “who is right,” but the goal should be to become more in-depth in our conversations.  Jumping into scripture is great and dialogues are great, but those who are set in their ways about what they already know sometimes can lead to an argument.  Your blog article does a great job of encouraging healthy conversations to deepen our understanding of Creation, scripture, science, nature, and so on.

I do know so many Christians who are anti-science, but my best friend and co-teacher is a Christian middle school science teacher and we have so many great discussions about how awesome God is and how nature shows it. Ultimately, we just try to get more interpretive and inquisitive about God’s purpose and God’s will in our lives through every thing God made and all that God has expressed to us through the Bible and through His Creation.

I was very interested in each of these ten reasons.  They were very helpful.  I took each of these ten and drew some conclusions from a few of them.  The first reason “knowing God” I quote “Deeper knowledge of God requires engagement with both theology and science.”  I agree with this statement. The idea of engagement means a meaningful discussion without making judgements as to who is right.  Science and theology can be companions not enemies.

Then Biblical interpretation colors all of what we think about the Bible and how it relates to this world.  As we learn more of God’s Word we see that creation was in fact the first step God took in bringing salvation to mankind. God created man and had a plan all along to redeem man from the effects of sin.

The next reason cultural engagement was also interesting to me.  Oord writes” The Christian ignorant about science is easily sidelined or even cut off from cultural conversations about the common good.”  So what is the common good.  Christians as well as non-Christians live in God’s created world.  God gives man a free-will to choose.  In this choosing the Christian can explore and learn or observe and speculate. It is easier to not know that to defend what you do know. This world in all its splendor God planned for the common goo of man.

So what are the bigger questions?  Questions like “Why is there anything rather than nothing? or “What is the ultimate source of right and wrong? Can these things be discussed? Disagreement can happen but healthy discussion is good.

The last statement Dr. Oord says “The idea that God is the ultimate source of creation and creatures jointing the creative process is present in other places in the Bible.”  I observe we need to see scripture as the fulfilling revelation of God of his plan, purpose and his provision in all areas of theology and science.  Lets join hands not fists and agree to be open to listen and learn from each other.

First off I couldn’t agree more with how you talk about how scientists who are Christians sometimes feel left out, and ostracized. It is a hard thing to hold two identities and feel like both of them are apart of you. I know how it feels to feel like you can’t choose just one to be apart of. One of the things we need to remember is that our Christian community consists of all different kinds of people. Secondly, I think our ignorance of science related content has caused us to defend our more Christian side. While this important in some regard, I think both sides are important to fairly explore in my opinion.  than we really need to. To stake Christianity’s validity on something like 6 day creationism causes us to defend a lot of ground that is unnecessary. God is capable of being present in multiple things and multiple situations. That means in science and outside of it. And I think data could easy go hand in hand with this whole idea of God made the earth in 7 or 6 literal days. Honestly for minor things such as this, what is the huge big deal when we disagree about the content anyways? Were called to love not hold grudges against everyone’s scientific claim.

I have always found this debate extremely interesting. Too often, Christians reject science as somehow evil, or not of God. If this theory holds, then one must reject all science as evil, and thus should have some alternate answer to how things work. In my opinion, it is naive to think of science in this way. Science does not seek to contradict God, but rather to understand Him more. I agree with these 10 reasons, and I believe that this debate is why many people think of Christians as unintelligent. If we cannot accept heat has been proven to be true, why would anyone want to follow us? More importantly, why would they want to follow Jesus? I firmly believe that as a Christian community we must be willing to accept and join the scientific community. It is an excellent tool that God has given us to be able to know Him more.

This Science-and-Theology dialogue is something that Christians should care about, but often times I do not think many do. They often leave it to the professionals such as Ken Ham, as well as many others. I think this only works if we plan on being Christians by ourselves. This is why I find number 5, Cultural Engagement, so compelling. We are to live and engage in the communities we are apart of. This does not only mean our church or religious communities, but also the ones we live in. When we live into these communities we are able to open up to discussion, which is an important part of community. This mean we will be able to talk about the hard issues, such as Science-and-Theology. Most of the world is compelled by science, and this means we are going to have to learn science in order to be in community with them. We will then be able to understand their side of the issue, which will allow us to open up dialogue between the two sides. These are just my thoughts on the issue though.

Honestly, I am uncertain of my thoughts on science and Christianity in partnership (at least in its fullest capacity). Growing up in the church there seemed to be tension between science and its possible role in the Christian faith. The subject which caused such controversy was the issue of evolution. In my limited knowledge of the term evolution, I came to the conclusion that to believe in evolution is to reject Christianity, primarily for the reason of creation and the beginning of life.

In a recent class discussion I discovered that most Christian often confuse the term evolution with evolutionism. According to Dr. Thompson, or at least my understanding of what he said, evolution is not trying to explain how life began. Evolution is trying to account for the process that took place after life(creation) began. To believe in evolution does not mean an individual has resign their belief. 

I believe that science and Christianity does not have to be in conflict. There are certain aspects about science that I still am uncertain about but I do know this, science can be revelatory just as nature is. To argue that God cannot reveal himself in all spheres (particularly science) is to limit God.

Assuming number three is implying that the science here discussed includes soft sciences such as psychology or social sciences, many Christians are inconsistent in this matter. I have spoken with many Christians who would say sciences such as psychology are highly relevant to ministry and Christian living. However these same Christians would say things such as evolution or environmental sciences are not as helpful to our lives as Christians. I find this to be a bit self centered in that humans become the only focus in the Christian life. But being a little Christ includes many different disciplines. Little Christs ought to infiltrate every discipline in which truth is sought. If we affirm that God is a God of truth, as followers of this God we ought to value anything that may help us better discern this truth even if it is contrary to what we may have previously believed.

I took particular interest in number six of the list, when you are mentioning how Christian scientists are more or less ostracized in the church. It is an interesting thought to analyze, thinking about how Christians who have varying curiosity in the church, and how they must feel when the pastor makes these sort of “stabs” at them. I haven’t thought of this much before, but also the whole idea of science and Christianity is always shifting around for me. Is there any sort of middle ground between these two things? I personally think that there is room for both science and religious belief in churches without much of a clash, but there has to be a way for these two to coincide without a lot of conflict. The joining of these two ways of thinking can cross paths peacefully, but I feel like we just need to find the most effective way.

My own thoughts when it comes to creation and science agree with your statements. As I look at science and the complexity of everything, especially the human body, I can’t help but think, “how can you see this incredible creation and not believe in God?” Our bodies and countless other things in nature are so complex and so detailed (we don’t even know yet so much of that detail) that there had to have been someone who intentionally put everything together perfectly. I have heard some of the science professors at NNU say that the further they go and the deeper they are in a subject matter, the more obvious it is that we were created by God.

I think some of those reasons you laid out are legitimate and apply to society today. Growing up, I was taught that if a person was too into science, then they weren’t a Christian. In the past few years I have realized that this is not true at all and I have learned that science actually has a lot to offer. The point I thought was the most interesting was #5 about culture engagement. You are right, Christians do not live in isolation. We live among others in a community. If we want to have meaningful conversations with others, we should at least know something about science so that we can engage with others.

After reading this, I was reminded of the web of interconnectedness and interdependence that seems to be evident in the creation accounts in Genesis. In Genesis 2, after creating the land, God appoints humans to “take care of” it. The root word that the NAS translates as “taking care” is the Hebrew word “עָבַד” , which means “to serve.” It is within this taking care of, protecting, and serving role that humanity was created to live within this web of interconnectivity and interdependence with the land. The land would be dependent on being taken care of by humans would in turn be dependent on the land for survival.

There have been a lot of progress as a result of advancements in modern technology and medicine. I am very grateful for some of those. I am afraid, however, that a consequence of these advancements is that it has widened the distance between our role as caretakers of the land. We are not as connected as we used to be because we don’t need to be. We no longer have to grow our own food because someone else or something else can do that for us. As a result, I have no idea what was used to grow the food I buy, the conditions of the working environment in which the workers labored to plant, farm, and yield the food I eat, or the practices that were used to raise the meat I eat. Being unaware and disconnected, unfortunately, has led to unintended social injustices. I am not saying that I am not thankful for the advancements that have been made. I take advantage of those on a daily basis. My point is that we have to work harder and be more intentional living in the 21st century about living into the vision of interconnectedness and interdependence that is built within the created order as put forth by Genesis 1 and 2.

I fully agree with the article saying that Christians “should intentionally engage the theology-and-science dialogue.” Some obvious reasons are as mentioned the care for creation. I guess it is obvious that some evangelical Christians didn’t really manage to accept global warming as a reality because some cultures had them believe otherwise. Behavioral sciences such as sociology could tell us a lot about why we are the way we are and why a whole culture group could resist seeing differently. Science in some way is a great component in gaining individual, communal and cultural self-knowledge.
I also appreciated the statement that “both theology and science live by faith.” And that faith changes due to new discoveries. When it comes to science Dr. Eckart von Hirschhausen, a German medical doctor and comedian (I know, a weird combo), once said that: “Science is only the current state of error.” By this he meant that there will eventually be a time that we proof wrong what we believed to be right at this moment. And that is ok because we continue research, we discover new things, current theories are challenged, new are born.
When it comes to church there is this common stereotype saying that church is always 10 years behind. Maybe it has to do with the fact that we think that it is not ok when we discover new things and challenge current ideas, especially in regards to Scripture. I am certain that behavioral science has something to say about that characteristic as well.
One example that relates to the coalition of faith and science is what we do in my congregation at the end of every service. At the end of every service we ask sick people to come to the front that need prayer. We also invite people form the congregation to gather around them and lay hands on them. And when we pray for those people we pray not only for divine intervention of the great healer but we pray for treatments, therapies, medication, doctors, surgeons, therapists, etc. We pray that they will practice their God-given talent well. If we separate God’s doing from His doing through people, I believe we are left with very little.

For the most part, I agree with the essay, “Christians Care about Science and Technology.” Though I pastor in an area that has a cultural focus on a literal interpretation of the Bible, in my congregation are several with advanced degrees in the sciences. This has given me opportunity to learn and to question alongside them what the intersection between theology and Science is. Much of what has been discussed in this essay fit into the converstations that I have had. It is important to realize that that God, as the creator, has left fingerprints on the creation. At its basic form science is a reading of these fingerprints. When it comes to scientific theories, such as evolution, it can be difficult to reconcile with scripture, at least in the entirety of the theory. One thing I appreciate about the Evolutionary Theory is that it forces science to agree with scripture on three foundation words “in the beginning.” Both creationist and evolutionist can agree that there was a beginning and common ground is always a good thing. In my opinion, God created, but how that creation took form is up to debate. The only statement I took issue with in the essay was “overwhelming evidence for global warming.” The global warming argument is nothing more than about power and money and has very little to do with actual science. Data that doesn’t point to warming is ignored, while scientists have been found to skew these numbers to prove their points. Let’s remember that it was not that long agao that there was “overwhelming evidence of global cooling.” I believe the evidence shows that there is global warming and global cooling and that these are natural cycles in the life of the earth. What I can agree with is that we are called to care for the creation. It is a responsibility given solely to humanity. I do not like to use the term environmentalist because again this is a political position, but instead conservationists, God has called us to conserve the creation, he has given us resources to be used, but they must be used in an ethical and balanced way. Living in West Virginia I can see the harm caused by misuse of these resources, the polluted Ohio River that flows near my town, the abandoned coal mines that were left with toxic remains after the useful resource was harvested. God has given us coal, it is useful and has greatly benefited the world for the better, but sometimes the processes, particularly in the past, were harmful to other areas of creation. We are called to be stewards of what God has provided.

The topic of science and theology has always been a subject that has been at conflict. In reading the paper, the 10 points are insightful, as I feel it deals with the aspects from a holistic perspective. The most cogent argument for me was the human person and how we used the study of science so much in the treatment of individuals who are ill. To argue that science and theology can not work together would be an argument that Christian should not use medicine and doctors. When we think of this case, it becomes more evident of the insanity of having science and theology at opposing sides.

I am challenged by the point relating to creation care. I believe this is an important reasonability that we as Christians should take more seriously and feel that there is not much attention on this in the Christian community. We need to be more caring to the world we live in. I recently watched a documentary that spoke about the alarming rate in which elephants are being killed. I could imagine how powerful it would be if the Church would get more involved in these types of topic. Somehow, I think it would make the church more attractive to people.

One of the strongest themes that compels me to agree with many of the points that Dr. Oord raises in this piece is the notion that we as the Created are participatory in the care and perpetuation of Creation. This is one of the fundamental charges of what it means to be Created; commands related to care and propagation are strongly stated within the Genesis creation narrative. I find it baffling that we would resist the implications of these commands, unless we are afraid of being held accountable for failing to live up to our end of the bargain when God asks for a reckoning of how responsible we have been with the gift of Creation (a la the servants who were given talents to invest when their master went away).

On those same lines, why any strong Christian would take offense at the concept of global warming and resist initiatives to curb our own human-made emission is beyond the scope of my understanding. Even if there is doubt to be found in the claims of the scientific community on this topic, why would we resist a course of action that is still unquestionably the better route for the health of Creation? Frankly, I am embarrassed by those who stubbornly refuse to invest in the conversation based on a very narrow anthropocentric view of our world and God’s charge to be caretakers over it.

As I read this article what I see is ten points that the author has made for an argument according to his own understanding. Each point is interesting point and the scriptures that is used are interesting in how they have been interpreted by the author. Yet it is very bias in how he has taken scripture to use it in a way to back his stance. Now with the very theory of evolution which stance are we to take. Who are we to listen too? From what I have seen there is at least four major theories of evolution; Lamarckism, Darwinism, Mutation Theory of Evolution, and Neo-Darwinism or Modern Concept or Synthetic Theory of Evolution. Maybe we should look at gradual evolution in where the process took over billions of years for the process of natural selection to have taken place. Or maybe we need to look at evolution under the understanding of gradual or punctuated equilibrium. What I am trying to get here is that there are still to many differing of opinions when it comes to the theory of evolution that I will have to stick with the understanding under a creation understanding done through proper theological studies.

The Blog Essay written by Oord rightly affirms that Christians care deeply about Science and Theology. However, on the other hand it is a fact that there are those who are not overly inclined about Science and Theology at that level of caring. Caring for Science and Theology though a noble aspiration should not suggest that all Christians should care about Science and Theology to the point of actually making the same a study. Hence, for many the dialogue about Science and Theology will remain at a superficial level by reason of choice and not necessarily because of disagreement or conflict – Some are simply contented to live the Christian life without the Scientific and Theological ramifications. However, this should not minimize the importance of intentionally engaging in “theology –and science dialogue.” The essay presents ten reasons to substantiate why this dialogue is important. It is a fact that there is a great degree of relationship between Science and Theology, hence meaningful dialogue will help to facilitate a general understanding of how these two works together in helping persons to think through their Christian faith. There are many meaningful points that are worthy of reflection, however I will reflect on the point of Knowing God as reflected through the life of Jesus Christ as Oord states, “We cannot know God as well as we otherwise might if we fail to study creation’s witness to its Creator.” Though studying the Creator’ witness to its creator is important yet I cannot from the words and life of Jesus see how this impacts knowing God especially for those who are mentally and physically challenged.

I agree that Christians need to work with science. Many years ago I was a physics major until I experienced some unexpected changes. While my outlook on life has changed dramatically, I still love reading about science. You cannot just dive in and take everything at face value. There are limitations and it is important to recognize these. There will be questions that will not be able to be answered. If we are not proactive in these discussions, then we will be forced to be reactive. Scientific discoveries will continue and if we are deaf and blind to these, then there will come a point where we will be forced into the picture. Cloning and genetic modification are just two examples that can cause this interaction. I think that when we enter into discussion with science, we need to know what our focus is. What will be our compass bearing? If we approach science with a focus on knowing God, instead of proving this or that, we can come across fulfilled. The strongest part of this section that resonated with me was knowing the Creator through creation. There is so much to learn and it is awe inspiring that the Creator is the uncaused cause of everything.

I believe it is imperative that Christians and science work together instead of against one another. Scripture is clear on this matter. Psalm 24:1 says-“The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and its inhabitants too.” (Common English Bible, 2012) I believe one can see from Scripture that God desires for us to care about and for His creation. I think , as believers, we sometimes limit the way God can speak to us as well. The evangelical protestant community, in particular, needs to understand and open itself up to the idea that God can and does speak to us in many ways, including through creation and science. I am a member of an evangelical protestant church. I am not throwing stones. I have been guilty of saying the Bible is all we need at times too. When we do this, it seems as if we are trying to limit God’s knowledge and ability. I have learned and been spoken to by God in multiple ways through the years. Many of which I have questioned in the past. I also think we need to understand that there will be both areas of agreement and disagreement as well. This is going to be the case with both our faith and science. It is normal and should not prevent our dialogue and discussion.

Tom, thank you for writing this post. I will confess that I have been one to advocate for the relationship between theology and science, but have failed to change my actions and posturing in my life. I attended a conference this past year where Richard Rohr was the guest speaker. He mentioned that creation is seen as the “second Bible.” In the way that the Scriptures reveal the story of God and God’s people, creation is a revelation of God as well. I had never thought of this, but I do believe that if I agree with the statement, which I do, then it ought to impact the way I care for creation as a co-creator. One of the ways I’ve taken up caring for creation is riding my bike to work. It may not have a “significant” impact, but I do think it is shaping the way I see and participate in creation. Additionally, I think the notion that Christians don’t live in isolation is important. Although, I would say that most of the Western world lives in isolation. Over time, we’ve inherited this belief that we can “do things on our own.” I don’t “need” my neighbors, city, etc. I think this isolation has led us to somehow believe or operate in such a way that says, “what I do, doesn’t make impact those around me.”

Thank you for your essay, Tom – I appreciate your thoughts. There is of course no good accomplished when people entrench themselves into their separate camps. How deeply either camp needs to care about dialogue would also directly correlate with how deeply they were entrenched. As you mention, it is important for Christians to have an intellectually responsible faith. A healthy understanding of science, history, reason, etc., assists in this process. As you also state, “both theology and science live by faith.” If both are underpinned by faith, it seems that both should have equal footing in one’s own journey toward intellectually responsible faith. If one is open to this concept, one’s care of each subject should be equally “deep.” If one is instead entrenched quite deeply, one’s need to care for the other perspective would be even more deep.

Along these lines, I was also thinking about the notion of dialogue. Too often we get caught up in debate, thinking we are in dialogue. Dialogue promotes interest in understanding and leads to growth, while debate often leads to further entrenchment. If science and theology can truly dialogue, then both become better. If they simply debate, one may “win,” but there are no real winners.

Tom,

After reading #6 I wondered if Christian groups like Answers In Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research are actually causing more harm than good in the church and in our the communities? I think that if the church mocks scientists or teaches that it is unbiblical to believe in anything other than Creationism that is reprehensible. In Straight Answers to Tough Questions Dr. John Morris says, “Creationism should be 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, for all other doctrines find their foundation in this one” (Morris 2002, 9). I believe that there is room in the Christian tent for believers who do not hold this dogmatic doctrine of Creationism. I believe that when we make non-salvific doctrine essential to be in the Christian tent that is unreasonable and dangerous. Science and theology need to be reside together and not run others away.

I would be interested to know how you feel about Ken Ham’s Creation Museum. I think that it is a great conversation starter and an awesome way to truly understand how big the Ark actually was… I just question how dogmatic their theology and how they present the Gospel.

Jason Kuhns

Tom – I enjoyed reading your essay and agree that Christians should care deeply about science and intentionally engage in dialogue with scientific theory. For the Christian, such engagement will result in a much deeper understanding of “creation’s witness to its Creator”. Your top ten reasons cover a broad perspective of the issues. We tend to think of science as relegated to the physical world. As you point out, human nature brings forth additional areas to ponder, including both psychological and sociological issues. I would like to suggest engagement of science can be extended to spiritual realm. We often focus on the spiritual as purely a theological debate. In most people, the change in human nature that occurs at the time of an initial personal encounter with Christ, is quite dramatic. A scientific study of the impact on the physical and psychological would be fascinating. As Christians, we need to embrace the scientists in our midst. They will most certainly open minds to new possibilities, deepening our understanding of who we are!

Recognizing the relatively recent animosity between ‘theology’ and ‘science’ definitely creates space for Christians to learn reconciliation skills. Finding ancient wisdom which can balance out modern discoveries by providing a backdrop for the ‘big picture,’ allows God’s word and human queries to peacefully coexist. The humility of a learner in any field of study opens possibility of dialogue, as multi-disciplinary considerations give new perspective and propel learning further. Seeing through the lens of theology can be deepened in areas of creation and self-care, as science equips us with a larger vocabulary for discussing truth. Offering God’s love through a listening ear, even amid confusion or disagreement, provides stepping stones of faith-and-reason working together.

What I have found very interesting was how, in point 4, where you talked about Creation Care, my mind was brought to the thought of science, medicine, and how God is involved in both. We are responsible, as humans, to ensure the care of our planet, everything that is on or in the planet, and be good stewards of this planet. Yet as we do that, we also have to take care of each other. We have been blessed with God’s hand in the medical field as well. There is a very strong connection with science and God and the two joining forces to help our brothers and sisters in the medical field as well. I know that there are people on both sides of the argument between, science and God. Yet they do need to work together, for they are all part of the world that was created for all to live in Unity.

Great read Dr. Oord! I especially enjoyed reading number 7. Faith and belief are not equal to absolute certainty. As Christian we believe that scripture is the living word of God. It is God’s story connecting with our story. However, scripture is not the only means in which God speaks to us. He speaks through scripture, prayer and His creation. Science and theology work hand in hand. Science helps to fill in the gaps of our uncertainty. Having faith does not mean that we are absolutely certain about how the world works. God can reveal truth to us through scientific revelation as well as through scripture.

While reading your blog, I was reminded about the focus on stewardship that was taught at the Presbyterian Church I attended growing up. The idea of Creation Care was very important and it was also reflected in lessons on knowing and understanding God better.

We don’t do much thinking about the human person as you state. We may in relation to abortion, cloning, or stem cell research but we do not do enough thinking nor take possible action as a result of our thinking.

What do you mean by “faith” in number seven? Is this the same definition of faith that we found with John Caputo?

While many of the “ten reasons” I had heard of, the new one for me was number ten: Creator and Co-creators. It makes sense and it’s right there in scripture. I had just never put the ideas together.

Dr. Oord thank you for this list and the debate you have set forth. I agree with most of your assessment and will also attest that I have heard sermons where the preaching is speaking against science and perhaps in my early career I may have been guilty of the same. In this respect your blog serves as a great reminder and a warning that as community of faith we have the responsibility of passing good knowledge instead of bad habits. Unfortunately many continue to pass the old habit of divide and conquer when it comes to the Christian faith verses other disciplines.

You covered a lot of the reasons why Christians should support science and I would like to add that on a simpler note that we are dealing with a lot of issues around the world where science has been instrumental. Whether it is dealing with droughts, famine, disease and war it is through the discipline of science where we have been able to combine human compassion with human ingenuity to battle these social challenges. In the Western world where we have conquered polio, malaria and other preventable diseases it has been science which has helped lead this charge. But it has also been the awareness to these issues raised from the value given to life through faith that has sparked this drive to find the answers to such ails. To rile against science is to rile against the antibiotics we take or the immunization shots our children take before school or the medicine our elders take to keep their memories in-tact in their old age.

Dr. Oord,

Thank you for you post and list. I appreciate your comment “Deeper knowledge of God requires engagement with both theology and science.” I have to admit that just a few years ago I was not for this as it appeared to me to be an “us against them” sort of mentality. I was discouraged with how it appeared to me that science was always trying to disprove the existence of God and all that He has done, and continues to do. There should be some sort of a dialogue between the two, which creates healthy dialogue about knowledge seeking and this is healthy. But there is also a point where some questions just cannot be answered as only He knows the answers. The question that got me thinking on the dialogue was what most do not think about and this would be the breathing. The fact that we are able to sleep and the body knows to continue to breathe while we are asleep is amazing and a miracle that only God can create. I do not totally disregard science and I do listen to hear so that there is a conversation but I am careful that God is not discounted or removed by these dialogues.