Scientists have condemned intelligent design. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that — an illusion. Each side got some things right and some things wrong. I believe that evolutionists are right in reminding us that the Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible is both very young and very old. The young parts are the teachings of love and forgiveness, justice and compassion, honesty and courage.
The old parts are the belief in a geocentric universe, the belief that the earth sits on wooden pillars in a great ocean what does the ocean sit on? Some things must change over six millennia, and science is one of them. Tethering our faith to ancient and discredited science only assures us of an ancient and discredited religion. I believe that the creationists and the intelligent design-ites are right in pointing out the utter uniqueness of human consciousness — something that appears nowhere else in nature.
Our brains are products of evolution, but not how we think or pray or forgive or love. The Bible can feel like a big book with long words and strange stories. Bible Need To Know is a recurring feature that looks at the st Are we blown by every wind of doctrine? What do we believe? When we take care to tend the fires of the altar, God will take care of the revival.
How can we tend the fire How can we tend the fires of the altar of our cities? The altar is where revival begins. The church is a place God and His people meet together.
What must our chur What must our church look like to invite revival? True change begins on the inside and moves out. The altar of the heart is a place of consecration, commitment The altar of the heart is a place of consecration, commitment, and holy habits. Many of us want spiritual awakening in our homes, church, city, and country.
The external results we all want The external results we all want begin with internal shifts. It all begins at the altar. The development of the first life on Earth is and was highly improbable, and scientists still cannot satisfactorily account for its beginning.
Christians will rightly say that God created the first life and, in fact, all life. And God through Christ continues to actively uphold the universe. For the Christian who accepts evolutionary science, the implication is that God has been and continues to be involved in the entire process of evolution.
But the issue here is that scientists want to account for the first life in terms of science, and that has as yet not been accomplished. To be sure, there is more work to be done. Yet almost all biological scientists find the evidence in support of the contemporary scientific theory of evolution quite compelling. In a sense these scientists say that they could hardly ask for a more convincing test and striking confirmation of a scientific theory. Virtually all scientists conduct evolutionary-related research within the contemporary scientific evolutionary paradigm.
This is true whether they are Christians—followers of Jesus—or non-Christians. Evolutionary theory is the starting point for all, for at this time there is no other scientific game in town that challenges evolution. I suspect this is behind the bad news in the latest Gallup poll on origins. Clearly, we need new strategies for engaging churches in conversation about science and Scripture.
Read more here. So, how does this leave the Christian believer in terms of relating evolutionary science to Christian faith? Can there be peace? Let me suggest a modest peace plan. Science done properly is agnostic regarding meta-science. Its methods are naturalistic—that is, science asks how in terms of laboratory investigations. Its data are numbers and diagrams. It cannot address the why questions of theology.
Science is a limited enterprise. The science that has been discussed in this essay implies nothing in terms of purpose or whether there is evidence for or against the existence of God. There is nothing anti-God or anti-Christian about evolutionary science. Such questions are not the purview or interest of science. Is evolution consistent with Christian thought as found in Genesis, particularly the first creation account in Genesis —? This is a legitimate question.
Genesis 1 sets forth a six-day creation event. Each creation event is an instantaneous creation, in contrast with the scientific picture of development over billions of years. Genesis 2 contains a second narrative of creation and relates a one-day creation.
How do we reconcile the two biblical creation narratives with contemporary science? Should we adjust science to conform to what we read in Genesis?
If so, which account in Genesis? Or can we think of faithfully reading Genesis 1 and 2 in a way that does not require the scientific data of these creation accounts to conform to twenty-first-century science?
Perhaps we could look for some meaning in these creation accounts that does not center on science as science, and in particular try to understand Genesis as the original author intended his readers hearers to understand his message in their ancient Near East context. The usefulness of the cosmological, geological, and biological data discussed in this essay may simply be to put some interpretive fences around the creation accounts in Genesis.
I maintain that these Genesis creation accounts are true and as 2 Timothy states, are intended to teach us what is true. But what is true for us as twenty-first-century readers may not necessarily be the ancient science in the accounts, but something much more important—the worldview of the ancient Hebrews.
If that was the intent of the sacred biblical author, then there is no conflict between contemporary science and our Bible. God indeed created, but Genesis 1 and 2 may not exist for the purpose of a science lesson, but rather for a much more important purpose. Genesis tells us of a people God set aside to bless all nations, and through the creation accounts we learn of the basic outlook this people had because of their relationship to God.
The bottom line is that the Bible is true, but we need to carefully read Genesis from the viewpoint of its ancient Near Eastern context and then ask how this might be appropriated within our own context. What should we tell our children about dinosaurs? We must tell them the truth. It is our responsibility to do our best to determine what that truth is.
We must not set up our children for confusion and disillusionment when they hear the scientific story from high school teachers and college professors. Richard F. Carlson holds the retired position of research professor of physics at the University of Redlands. He was visiting professor of theology and science at Fuller Theological Seminary and visiting scientist at nuclear physics labs in North America, Europe, and Africa.
Science and its spokespeople, speaking for science, should stick to science and not claim that evolutionary science demonstrates that God does not exist. Scientists must do competent and honest science. Christians must also be honest—and those with experience in science must honestly evaluate scientific evidence. This will require careful and thoughtful study. However, there are ample resources for further reading. The following is a sample of worthwhile books by Christian authors who are active professionally in the bio, geo, and physical sciences.
Collins, a research geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project, finds no conflict between rigorous science and belief in God, and presents a synthesis of scientific and spiritual worldviews. Darrel R. Falk, a biology professor, makes the case that the harmonization of contemporary physical and biological science and the fundamentals of Christian faith is completely reasonable.
He wants to construct a bridge between the two. Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. The Haarsmas, a cosmologist and a physicist, respectively, focus on areas where Christians both agree and disagree on topics related to origins. They present strengths and weaknesses related to areas of disagreement. Denis O.
0コメント