All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Science and the evolution of Christianity - scope for understanding?
The Scopes Trial—formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial—was a landmark American legal case in 1925 in which high school science teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach evolution.[1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Science v Christianity - Certainly seemed to be the case (literally) in the above mentioned Scopes trial - which effectively was about the doctrine of human origin and evolution. Indeed there were two opposing sides - the scientific and Christian communities, at least that was the public view. The Christian community rejected scientists account of evolution claiming it was unbiblical. Science was wrong!
Is science wrong though? I do not believe it is.
It is some of the scientists who are wrong in their speculations. But I also believe that some in the Christian community should not discount evolution - as a process used by God. I've heard many Christians say "I don't believe in evolution", but there are valid scientific claims in Darwin's theory of evolution; some aspects of his theory were/are obviously speculative.
The creation is another issue that seemingly separates science and Christianity - how old is the universe? Is there a designer? Who created God? etc etc
It is not a case of science v Christianity - rather isn't it a case of science for Christianity? There should be scope for understanding between both communities I believe.
After all - science is only revealing what God has created.
Any thoughts on this?
Views: 2627
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on
-
Thanks for the post LT;
I have read the article above and I agree about the possible theological implications of denying the bible's view of creation. Can I share an article from The BioLogos forum (Science and Faith in dialogue);
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin?
Introduction
Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.
Early Christian Thought
To understand how Genesis was interpreted during ancient times, see John Walton's Reconciling Science with Scripture and Denis Lamoureux's The Ancient Science in the Bible and The Message-Incident Principle from our Science and the Sacred blog.
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4
Later Christian Thought
There are many other non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1–2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion and was strongly influenced by Augustine. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings.
In Summa Theologica, he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:
On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world.5
Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the eighteenth century—just before Darwin published The Origin of Species—in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought the scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,
The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them.6
Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details] but to lead us to God.”7
In the nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary was known for its staunch defense of conservative Calvinism and the absolute authority of Scripture. Perhaps the most noted Princeton theologian of that era, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution as giving the proper scientific account of human origins. He believed that hearing God’s voice in Scripture and the findings of solid scientific work were not at odds. As historian Mark Noll puts it, “B. B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.”8
Conclusion
The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The discoveries of modern science should neither be seen as the instigator of some abandonment of trust in Scripture, nor as contradictory to Scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of Scripture’s meaning.
Augustine offers this advice:
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.9
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Desmond,
The conclusion is in error and misleading. It implies that Christiandome was not dominated by literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2. This is false. There has always been alternative views presented by others who love Jesus on many doctrines, but the fact that these few mentioned are well know and beloved by the people of God does not make them right in this instance, nor does it make them the dominate view of the day or era.
You will also find that these people, and us included, often change their view on a subject over a period of time. One may believe and teach that the world was flat and then later in life believe that the world is a sphere. The reality is that the world is a sphere no matter whether the person believed it as flat or as a sphere.
Note: I do not read the Scripture literally. I read it "face value." The text has to be taken as given. Poetry is poetic writing; allegory is allegoric writing; history as historical; and literal as literally given.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Thanks LT for your thoughts. I understand that Christiandom would have been dominated by literal interpretations of Genesis 1 & 2 - that sounds very realistic to me.
What I am also thinking of is that during various periods in Christiandom the literal interpretation of the Bible (on some issues) held by the majority of believers during those times presented views that we now know are different: the ancient view of the three storey universe/cosmos is one example.
"The reality is that the world is a sphere no matter whether the person believed it as flat or as a sphere."
Can I ask for your thoughts on how this can become a reality for members of the Flat Earth Society as they are claiming to hold to their belief based solely on their literal interpretation of scripture? Are there scriptures that refer to the earth being spherical which these people are unaware of? I am trying to understand why they still hold to the view of a flat earth and how they derive and maintain that view based exclusively on scripture.
People changing their views is true, certainly in my case. I appreciate your perspective on reading and understanding scripture - have you by any chance read "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" by Fee and Stuart?
In Christ,
Desmond
-
-
Truth is always constant. Man's view often is skewed. What is true and real does nto change. The earth is a sphere ... that is reality and true, because one does not believe it to be true does not change the truth and reality. We can say it is their reality, but that really is not true. It is there perception, but that does not make it true.
Man down through the years has been in error at times when they choose one method or the other (allegoric or literal) exclusively when attempting to understand the unchanging truth of Scripture. I believe that we must interpret Scripture at face value as stated before and read the text in the literary style it was given.
Regarding flat earth, what they believe and why, I simply have not studied their view and really don't care to, thus wiil not and cannot discuss why they stick to an errant teaching.
I have not read the book you mentioned, but will look into it. I'll add it to the list of things to read :-)
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Permalink Reply by The evidence based Stig on
-
I'm currently reading john lennoxs new book "7 days that divide the world" which looks at this. I'll provide my thoughts on it once I have finished :)
-
-
From allaboutgod.com:
What happened on each of the six days of creation in Genesis?
The account of the six days of creation in Genesis tends to be a controversial subject among Christians. There are various theories to reconcile the biblical account of creation with the secular account of creation. Taken literally, the biblical account of creation does contradict the majority of university textbooks on the issue of our origins.
1. On the first day God created the Earth, which at the time would have been a giant ball of water, and He divided light from darkness. The supernatural light would not be talked about in science textbooks.
2. On day two God separated the water from the air. In most textbooks, the origins of oxygen would not predate land.
3. On the third day God created the land and plants.
4. On the fourth day God created the stars and the sun. The Earth predating the sun and stars by three days is considered a heresy among secular scientists.5. On day five fish and birds were created. The birds coming before land animals contradict macro-evolutionary models.
6. On the sixth day of creation, land animals and man were created. At this time there was no death on the Earth, and God proclaimed it was good. The six days of creation contradicts the Darwinian model, which claims death predates man.
In order to reconcile these contradictions with secular science, Christians have proposed several theories. One is the gap theory, which claims there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth” and shortly after that Darwinian evolution takes place. Of course this still requires ignoring the various contradictions with secular science described in the six days of creation.
Another is the day-age theory. This is the belief that each of the six days of creation could represent more than an actual day, as we know according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, time is relative. A day to God could mean a thousand years to us. Again, this does nothing to explain the contradictions between God’s Word and the word of secular science. Billions of years cannot be added to any particular day, and still reconcile the word of God with the word of the science of today.
Even if we could miraculously find a place for the billions of years within the six days of creation without sacrificing the inerrancy of the bible, we would then have to accept that death and bloodshed came before sin. Death came as the result of sin. Because of this, the crucifixion was needed to reconcile us to God in accordance with the law of the Old Testament that states that death is the consequence of sin. Reinterpreting the bible to suit the science of the day undermines this concept.
Another theory is that the Bible is only the word of man, and not the truth. The truth is that science is also the word of man, and it changes from day to day. The proofs of evolution and an old Earth today are completely different from the evidence my father would have learned about going through school. And what we know today will most likely be discarded when the next generation comes along. The Bible, on the other hand, has remained unchanged.
The final theory is that every word of the Bible is true. Every day, creation scientists are finding more and more evidence to support the six days of creation. There is nothing wrong with science, but in the end it is the fallible word of man.od.com:
-
-
just a quick reply LT - I am of the view that science is independent. The problems/issues arise when people attach their philosophies to science IMO.
Will respond soon
-
Permalink Reply by a servant (Chris) on
-
Desmond
For me I have to lean on Faith. I am not judging anyone for there view. I have been in this discussion so many times. So just my two cents, I chose to believe in Faith. I understand many have the desire to know what was. Nothing is wrong w/ wanting to know what was. Yet, I have come to the desire of what to know what will be. I am looking forward to what will be. Good discussion Brother you do truly what to discover. I say Amen to that. As I said just my two-cents worth
-
-
Desmond
We are created in His image. When evolution go to man, can't see it.
-
-
Good question Chris - I guess it's from dust to flesh and bones? Not according to Darwin but according to God.
I do believe that science can be legitimately used to glorify God.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
