Moving On
June 19th, 2006 | by Scott |My sermon was not recorded yesterday. It really bums me because I thought it was a timely treatment of humanity that led into our discussion of stem cell research last night.
I was incredibly pleased with my congregations handling of the discussion last night. They appeared to take a much more scientific, pro-technology stance than I anticipated. They quickly seized on the emptiness of the “playing God” critique, the chasm between “potential human” and “actual human,” and the responsibility we have to those who are with us now.
May our ethics have the time necessary to catch up with our technology.
All of you who participated in the discussion were acknowledge at the beginning.
My next subject is Intelligent Design: or why we are so bent on being at war with science.
Give me your thoughts on this. What do you think about the intelligent design debate? Why do we bump heads with science so regularly? How do we overcome that?
13 Responses to “Moving On”
By Tracy3906 on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
It was a great discussion! We are so fortunate to have such an intelligent church willing to be challenged and ask questions.
By Phil Wilson on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
Here’s my one basic thought on the Creationism vs. Evolution mindset.
That’s not the real issue. The real issue is the Bible and whether or not it is trustworthy and/or literal. If you believe Scripture is 100% literal and you run up against something that disproves it, either Scripture is wrong or whatever you ran up against is wrong (in most people’s eyes). But if Scripture is bigger than that, bigger than being simply literal, then there’s room for more there.
I know several people who have “lost their faith,” after spending their entire lives believing that Scripture was 100% literal, and then ran up against something that disproved it. I think the other case for that is that their faith wasn’t really in Jesus. It was in the Bible.
But that’s just me; I could be wrong.
By Dan on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
This one I’m chiming in on early. For years, the church has operated under the premise that, other than certain “mysteries,” we have a pretty good idea of who God is and how He operates; in particular, the center of the solar system (indeed, the entire cosmos), and the nature of biological relationships. Along comes science, and (from our point of view) it challenges everything that we’ve held dear. Galileo, Copernicus, and others from an astronomical view, and Darwin and others from a biological view. We’ve been so stuck on the fisrt six days of creation, that we cannot view the text as anything other than literal.
My opinion is that there is nothing in the text of the Bible that precludes the view that we have been given thus far by science. “God created the heavens and the earth” leaves a lot of room for discussion. Plus, since we had our picture established, we didn’t delve too deeply into what science had to tell us. The intricacies of early universe formation and the change of biological adaptations over time have led many to wonder what the impetus behind all these is, especially when the change doesn’t follow a logical progression (about which I had a heated discussion with my Biology prof at UALR). We’ve tagged the “Big Bang” and Darwinism as heretical to the point that we are unwilling to discuss it at all. For proof of this, pay attention to the rear ends of various cars that you follow in traffic - the little fish with feet being swallowed by the big “Truth” fish, or the bumper sticker that ends with “God spoke and BANG! It happened.”
Ultimately, we seem to have no problem interpreting the last book of the Bible as mostly allegorical; why is it that we feel the need to treat the first one so literally?
By Dan on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
That’s what I get for writing in phases - someone else comes in faster than you and says it more succinctly - Great point, Phil.
By Scott on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
So, how do we continue this line of thought? How do I approach the relationship of science with scripture. I think the “faith in the bible” part is accurate. Invariably, when we tackle any kind of “issue” there comes along the criticism “I come to church to study the Bible, not this other stuff.” As if the Word is relegated strictly to the sacred page.
So, how do we address this in a constructive manner for those of us who have rejected much of what science has to tell us?
And I say this as one who has always taken the beginning stuff literally.
By Phil Wilson on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
I think some of it has to do with how we view Scripture. Do we view it as 100% accurate? Do we view it as the superstitious ramblings of some prehistorical figures concerning a mythology that barely holds any finger in reality? Is there a third way? Is there a place for the Bible to not be 100% accurate, letter for letter and still be the Word of God?
I think so. I think the context of the people through whom God spoke, wasn’t erased simply because God was speaking through them. Just take Matthew and Luke. Matthew was obviously writing a Gospel for Jews to relate to and Luke was writing one for Gentiles.
By John on Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
I think we have to view at least some of the bible as not 100% accurate since it has been written, re-written, and endlessly translated by humans with all their flaws. But some of the biggest problem is that some do take it as 100% accurate and don’t take a wider view on things.
One of the arguments I always see the pro-darwin crowd using to shoot down the strict creationist is the claim the earth is only 6000 years old. Which I would guess, but am not fully sure of, they are getting from the creationist. My argument on this would be what is God’s view of a year, most likely he has no view being timeless, but for him it could 6000 years. We as humans have defined a year in a very fixed and rigid fashion making that 6000 more on the order of billions. Once you get past the time frame argument then the rest of the debate can prove either point, Darwin showed some of the stages of creation and the creationist are still correct since the order in the bible of planet, plants, animals, humans is still followed.
I Know that over all this is a very simplistic argument trying to reconcil both sides but I think it can work with a lot more fleshing out.
By Brent B on Jun 20, 2006 | Reply
Phil said: “I think some of it has to do with how we view Scripture. Do we view it as 100% accurate? Do we view it as the superstitious ramblings of some prehistorical figures concerning a mythology that barely holds any finger in reality? Is there a third way? Is there a place for the Bible to not be 100% accurate, letter for letter and still be the Word of God?”
Here’s the problem, Phil - A literal interpretation of the Bible and one that views it as 100% accurate and inspired has formed the ideas about God, reality, prophecy, spirituality, etc. You can’t deny the accuracy of the Bible and then still hold on to its ideas about these things.
Many Christians are finally understanding that God didn’t create the world 4,010 years ago and that Noah’s flood might not have happened. Some are under the suspicion that God really didn’t tell the Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Palestine. The list goes on and on. Instead of denying only the more obvious problems that are coming to light, maybe Christians need to re-evaluate their entire view of God and spirituality. I still consider myself a Christian by tradition but suspect that most of the conclusions we have drawn have been created in our own heads and not necessarily revealed by God.
Brent
By TCS on Jun 20, 2006 | Reply
Well I agree with Phil, but as far as how to bridge that Gap there is a guy at http://www.doesgodexist.org that came here a year or two ago and did a good job. I was very skeptical, He was not real heady, but is a ex highschool teacher.
Not on subject with the comment string but as to the question of bumping our heads on science he was pretty good.
By Brent B on Jun 20, 2006 | Reply
I’ve heard John Clayton 3 times. He is a good enough guy. However, he starts with a conclusion and works backwards ad hoc to prove it. There is usually a contingency of evolutionists that go to his lectures that give him a hard time. He does not act like a jerk toward them, so I have to give him props for that.
Brent
By Jeff on Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
I have to say I agree with Brent’s first post on this topic.
Scott: What is at issue in the evolution v. creation debate is not a argument between religion and science - it can’t be because there is only one truth to be known and both religion and science are about truth, right?
Thus, the argument is about authority and reliability. Creationists believe that if you have two “choices” about what to believe - one from the Bible and one from science, you choose science. Most everyone else believes the opposite.
What I believe Creationists are missing is that “interpretative filter” they use to get to the conclusion that the derivations of science are in conflict with the aurthority of Scripture.
Even if you’re a “literalist” you don’t have any obligation to believe in 6, 24 hour days for creation. That’s just a baseless assumption (and, yes, I’ve heard all the arguments from Ken Ham and the Creation Research Institute on this question).
But the foundation of literal interpretation is pretty shaky and is the source of most of the “conflict” supposedly between science and religion. Visit http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm for some interesting reading.
By Steve Allison on Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I’m enjoying Chris Heard’s series on what’s wrong with innerrancy over at his blog.
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/
He’s a Pepperdine Prof
Steve
By scott on Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
Great links and great discussion. Thanks for stretching a non-science oriented mind.
I don’t think, at this point, I’m going to tackle this on Sunday night. I don’t see a way to present it right now and be constructive.
I’d love to hear more thoughts, though.