Why worry about origins?

With the anniversary of Darwin's publication of Origin of Species . . . the topic of evolution is again being pushed to the forefront of public thought. It deserves to be asked why this topic should be of concern to evangelical readers. After all, people have been finding salvation in Christ for two millenia without needing to have a perfect understanding of the process of origins. Why should readers put time and effort into trying to disentangle this issue? Bethany Sollereder, "God and Evolution: A Review of Four Contemporary Books," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 61:40-48, March, 2009. Quote is from p. 40.

Why, indeed? Sollreder might equally have said that we don't need a perfect understanding of quantum mechanics, or eschatology, the Trinity, or a lot of other things, to make it to heaven, and it's a good thing that we don't. In fact, we finite humans probably don't have a "perfect understanding" of anything.

But we are created in God's image. Things that that seems to include are the ability to think, and some curiosity. (As well as some other properties, probably more important than these two. We can form relationships, communicate verbally, and make moral choices, among other likely attributes of being in God's image.) So reasoning, curious creatures are probably going to try to figure out how things got started. A long time ago, some scientists used to say, when they were learning how things worked, that they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him." Maybe they were. Maybe scientists of our day sometimes are, too.

Not only do we try to find out things because we are in God's image, but we are supposed to be stewards of God's creation. To be a good steward is to be an informed steward. Study of how things came to be as they are should help us to understand better how to take care of the living things that are still in existence.

As you can see from the reference above, Sollereder's review goes on for nine pages. Clearly, the editor of Perspectives, and, presumably, Sollereder, thought there was some importance in describing four books on reconciling scientific data about origins, God's revelation in nature, with God's revelation through the Bible. I agree. Suffice it to say that Sollereder believes that Kenneth R. Miller's Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, and Denis Lamoureaux's Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, are valuable books, for persons who read them carefully.

Can I prove that reading one of these books is as important as, say, reading a book about how to raise a Christian family? No. But, for some Christians, Christian stewardship of God's creation, and learning as much as possible about God's activity in the natural world, seems to be part of their calling. If that is true, they need to follow that call, which may include learning, and receiving training, in areas such as origins.

Thanks for reading.

Jerry Coyne's essay: Are Science and Religion really compatible? 3, responses by others

I have been posting about an essay by Jerry Coyne, wherein he argues that a person who believes in a God who can work miracles cannot be a good scientist, or that religion and science are basically incompatible. The first post is here, and the second is here.

In this post, I present summaries of three reactions to Coyne's essay. The first two are by Christian authors who have attempted to show that science and Christianity are, indeed compatible. Coyne's essay was a review of their books. Edge gave several authors, including these two, the opportunity to react to Coyne. Most of them agree with him.

Karl Giberson differs, as might be expected. Giberson makes two excellent points. First, he says, science has historical baggage that would be embarrassing, if it was brought up constantly. He doesn't mention them, but I will give a couple of examples -- phlogiston and epicycles. We don't talk about science as if it still used these theories. Why not, then, allow theology the same privilege? Why hold Christianity to a outdated belief in a "tyrannical anthromorphic deity," when such belief has been superseded by almost all Christians?

Second, Giberson says: I wonder what would happen if, in the name of pluralism and diplomacy, we could all agree that it was OK for people to believe that evolution was a part of God's plan.

Kenneth R. Miller's response to Coyne is longer, and, I think, deeper.

Miller begins by disagreeing with Coyne's classification of Miller as a creationist. (See my previous post on how Coyne defines such.) Miller points out that he argued against the Intelligent Design side in the Kitzmiller trial. Miller says that he exhibits only one of the four characteristics by which Coyne identified creationists.

Miller then argues that Coyne has invoked "convergence" when he wants to, but only when he wants to. He also says that, although some alleged miracles -- a world-wide flood being one -- are subject to empirical verification or rejection (He says that one has been rejected) others, such as the incarnation and the resurrection, are not, but that Coyne rejects them anyway, because his position really is that there can't have been, or be, any miracles. As Miller says, that's a faith statement on Coyne's part. So he attacks Coyne's logic, and the soundness of his thinking.

Miller says that science, as practiced, requires methodological naturalism, but that Coyne confuses that with philosophical naturalism, a belief that the physical or natural world is all that exists, which is not a requirement for the practice of science, and which science can neither prove or disprove. (This Wikipedia article contrasts the two, but calls philosophical naturalism ontological, or metaphysical, naturalism.) Methodological naturalism assumes that the supernatural is not going to somehow assert itself when we perform experiments, so as to alter the results.

Miller points out that there are real and important questions, such as why science works, and why there is anything at all, that science cannot answer, and that Coyne shows no interest in, because he believes that scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge.

He closes his response by saying that, considering the state of belief in evolution in North American today, Coyne is driving away allies that he needs in the important task of changing the perception of so many that what science has to say about the age of the earth, and the relatedness of organisms, is invalid.

Miller's response is masterful, a splendid antidote to Coyne.

He Lives, a good Christian blogger who is also a scientist, has also reacted. I cannot repeat his arguments here fully without committing plagiarism, but will summarize by saying that the author first considers the definitions of incompatibility, and says, convincingly, in my view, that science and Christianity cannot be shown to be incompatible. In fact, they must not be, since there are some good and important scientists who are Christians, and there always have been.

Then, He Lives considers seven common arguments which claim that science and Christianity are incompatible, and shows that each of them fails.

He has written a short, logical, and insightful response, which, although not exactly considering Coyne's essay (He Lives was aware of it) demolishes its central theme.

Compatibility between science and Christianity is possible. Like any marriage of strong-willed, independent, and unlike entities, making this marriage work has been, and will be, difficult. But, since the Bible and the findings of science are both part of God's revelation to us, we need to work at it. It is unfortunate that Coyne and others are actively trying to stop such activity, and are unwilling to acknowledge that their arguments that it can't be done don't hold up.

Thanks for reading. Read Miller and He Lives.

On a much different note (if you'll excuse the word) Happy Birthday, Handel!