Based on the comments I received from my blog posts on the science and religion debate, I want to point Evangel readers in the direction of some resources that would inform the conversation because––with the exception of a few interlocutors––pervasive ignorance and fear seem to prevail instead of knowledge and faith.
From Natural History magazine. “Intelligent Design?” Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EO).
From Timothy Keller (Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, author of many books including The Reason for God: Belief in God in an Age of Skepticism)
From BioLogos
- How is BioLogos different from Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism?
- What is the proper relationship between science and religion?
- Can scientific truth and scriptural truth be reconciled?
- What factors should be considered in determining how to approach a passage of Scripture?
- How was the story of Genesis interpreted before Darwin?
- What were the Christian responses to Darwin?
- What is evolution?
- What role could God have in evolution?
- Did evolution have to result in human beings?
- At what point in the evolutionary process did humans attain the “Image of God”?
- How does the Fall fit into evolutionary history? Were Adam and Eve historical figures?
- Is there room in BioLogos to believe in miracles?
Books
- Harold Attridge (ed.), The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does it Continue?
- Ronald Numbers (ed.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion; Darwinism Comes to America; The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design
- John Mark Reynolds (ed.), Three Views on Creation and Evolution: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism, and Theistic Evolution
- Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (Gifford Lectures); When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?
- John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science; Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion
- Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
- Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
- Conor Cunningham, Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong
- Richard Carlson & Tremper Longman, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins
- Alister McGrath, Science & Religion: A New Introduction; The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology; A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Gifford Lectures)
- Michael Ruse, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?; Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in an Age of Science; The Evolution-Creation Struggle; Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?; Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (c0-editor William Dembski),
- Anthony O’Hear, Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation
August 11th, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #1
Every single book, you’ve cited, shows the lie, advocated by the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, the neuroscientist, Sam Harris, and the philosopher Dan Dennett, that religious belief is wholly incompatible with acceptance of neodarwinian evolution. There is no conflict.
Although, Behe, Meyers, and others, in the intelligent design movement mean well, all of their claims (partcularly Behe’s “irreducible complexity” argument) seem to have been cogently answered by the scientific community. It’s time to move on.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #2
@Bret
I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that religious belief is wholly incompatible with acceptance of neodarwinian evolution?
August 11th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #3
Great resource by Keller
August 11th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #4
No, Ken, I’m saying that, it’s a lie, that religious belief, and neodarwinian evolution are wholly incompatible. They’re completely compatible, in my judgment.
Oddly enough, the attorney Phillip Johnson, The biochemist Mikael Behe, and others, appear to be “strange bedfellows” with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the rest, concerning the notion that, belief in evolution means that belief in God is unnecessary. Obviously, they go in completely different directions, but both groups seem to share a particular extreme proclivity in their thinking on this issue: that evolution is an enemy to religious faith.
August 11th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #5
“Based on the comments I received from my blog posts on the science and religion debate, I want to point Evangel readers in the direction of some resources that would inform the conversation because––with the exception of a few interlocutors––pervasive ignorance and fear seem to prevail instead of knowledge and faith.”
While by no means a comprehensive resource, here is a post by Frank Turk which Evangel readers can evaluate for themselves as to whether there is “pervasive ignorance and fear” on his part “instead of knowledge and faith”:
A Spectacle For Our Very Eyes to Gaze on.
August 11th, 2010 | 4:10 pm | #6
Franks post has two absolute screamers
The question of whether Gen 1 is about “days” or “periods” has not yielded a uniform answer in Christian exegetical history, and in the past 2-ish millennia it has not often been the high-sign of apostasy.
Yet it is today. Why is that?
What is in question is whether or not one can read Genesis in contradiction to the balance of Scripture.
Yet you do that very thing, as does every “literalist” There is no way to read Genesis 1 and 2 and insisting on “literalism” without either ignoring the contradictions or going through crazy gymnastics to make them work together. By insisting on reading G 1 literally, you make Gen 2 false. What’s up with that?
August 11th, 2010 | 4:16 pm | #7
David Carlson: “Franks post has two absolute screamers”
Take it up with Frank Turk.
Do you think his “two absolute screamers” shows “pervasive ignorance and fear” on his part?
August 11th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #8
Thanks for compiling a list of resources worth spending time reading and pondering.
Bret, you are absolutely correct: “it’s a lie, that religious belief, and neodarwinian evolution are wholly incompatible. They’re completely compatible.”
Just as the Church has adjusted to a heliocentric solar system, so she will eventually adjust to the truth of neodarwinian evolution. It’s just a matter of time before all the inefficient, nervous heat dissipates and people realize there was no need to be so afraid all along. Fear is a mighty force wielding wild distortions of vision. May genuine faith prevail in its stead.
August 11th, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #9
‘Just as the Church has adjusted to a heliocentric solar system, so she will eventually adjust to the truth of neodarwinian evolution.”
#1. Not an apt analogy. Good try though.
#2. The Roman Catholic Church has compromised itself with its allowance of theistic evolution as acceptable for its members to teach and hold.
#3. The Church is not necessarily the visible Roman Catholic Church.
August 11th, 2010 | 7:39 pm | #10
“Neo” Darwinism is an interesting ploy here in the comments section. As I understand it, there are still a lot of dissimilarities between neodarwinian evolution and theistic evolution. That’s still an important distinction, I’d say. That begs the next question for me, in a spirit of unity:
What are the ideas common to all acceptable “Christian versions” of evolution/creation?
Creation/First Cause ex nihilo,and real Adam and Eve? Is that it? Is that enough?
Christopher, thanks again for the resources in the neater format. I begin my reading now….
August 11th, 2010 | 9:37 pm | #11
For the record, Frank’s blog at the Pyro site is actually a response he first posted to me on his previous blog here.
Frank is a good interlocutor, but he did not respond to my comments there about the way in which Christian tradition ultimately combined two views of creation–creation out of nothing and creation from chaos.
The latter was taken from Genesis 1 and interpreted the “week” as suggesting that creation involved a developmental process in which form was given to matter. The former was held at least since Hermas wrote The Shepherd and might be alluded to by Paul in Rom. 4:17 where he connects it to resurrection. The Greek reads “calls things from non-being to being.” As far as I know, BioLogos folks affirm creation out of nothing, and in this sense they share common ground with Augustine’s simultaneity view. Bruce Waltke explicitly affirmed it on the BioLogos site.
The former–creation from chaos–Christians saw as emerging after the initial creative moment. Ireneaus affirms a developmental view of creation, even concluding from his exegesis of Genesis 2 that Adam and Eve were developmentally children and thus in need of growth. In the twelfth century, Hugh of St. Victor affirms that after the initial creation of all matter out of nothing, God developed beautiful being from being, i.e., God shaped matter in ways commensurate with the Word, who is the pattern for all living things.
In affirming evolutionary development, BioLogos is essentially affirming creation from chaos. In this sense also there is a connection to Christian tradition.
Thus, in both of these ways, BioLogos’ interpretation of Genesis finds anchors in Christian tradition. It is acceptable for BioLogos’ to claim Augustine insofar as they share a non-literal understanding of Genesis 1 and insofar as they affirm the simultaneous creation of matter and energy (namely, the Big Bang).
So, the challenge for Frank is to show how BioLogos’ view is as contradictory to the Biblical witness and Christian tradition as he seems to think; and an additional challenge is for him to say why BioLogos cannot claim Augustine along the lines I have suggested when he has already admitted that we all take some parts from Augustine and reject others.
Thanks again Christopher for the series and bringing the debate to the Evangel blog.
August 11th, 2010 | 10:22 pm | #12
“Thanks again Christopher for the series and bringing the debate to the Evangel blog.”
I echo the thanks. Although I vigorously disagree with Christopher’s affirmation of theistic evolution, I do appreciate the debate.
August 12th, 2010 | 4:19 am | #13
Bryce: I think that the comparison with the heliocentric version, of the solar system is a good one. Often, we think that there’s a conflict, when none exists.
David Strunk: I think that the essential difference, between neodarwinian evolution, and theistic evolution, is that the former, is strictly a scientific theory, and the latter, is atheological extrapolation from the former.
Clearly, we have scientists, atheists, Christians, etc., who believe in neodarwinian evolution, on the basis of strong empirical evidence, in its favor. One may extrapolate, from this, that God does not exist, or one may conclude, much more reasonably, I would submit, that God created the evolutionary process, and theistic evolution emerges.
The “neo” part, is largely due to the plethora of genetic knowledge, that has been acquired, since Darwin’s time, and incorporated into evolutionary biology.
There are some biologists, who believe that evolution has no purpose, and is a completely contingent process, and therefore, no creature, human or otherwise, was “meant” to arise. This is incompatible with Christian belief. One can accept the plethora of evidence that support evolution, as a random process, in its own sphere, BUT believe that God, being outside of space and time, knew precisely, since he caused it, ultimately, that humans and others would , of course, arise.
Note that the claim that humans were not necessarily “meant” to be here, is an extrapolation, that goes beyond the empirical evidence, and often says a lot about the atheistic presuppositions of the scientist claiming it.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:07 am | #14
I’d like to throw into the mix “The Lost World of Genesis One” by John H. Walton.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:29 am | #15
Yesterday I located the “three views” book edited by John Mark Reynolds and noted that he takes a Young Earth position. I Googled him a bit in regard to that and came across a discussion he had with Hugh Ross on the Reasons to Believe program. I was delighted to find that it was not a debate but a friendly discussion, and without one bit of rancor — I wish more discussions on the this issue could be that way. If Reynolds is extreme in his views, on the BioLogos index, I think he has struck a good balance on discussing it in a Christlike way.
The discussion I listened to yesterday can be found here: http://www.reasons.org/evil-suffering/animal-death-before-adam/young-earth-creationism-interview-dr-john-mark-reynolds
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact