Itâs a real catch 22. We wouldnât know as much as we do without the extreme specialization within science. But specialization requires experts and we are necessarily dependent on them for access to the information acquired.
For those not invested in the acquisition of all this knowledge who are instead invested in living life along traditional lines, it probably feels like an intrusion. We are careful not to foist the knowledge of hereditary markers for life threatening diseases on people but we are less reticent with information which undermines traditional belief systems.
Personally I prefer to know what can be known and appreciate the people who acquire the specialization to expand our knowledge. But obviously this choice to know more is not one everyone wants to make. Disagreement is not surprising and isnât even unreasonable necessarily.
Could it be that itâs not so much what we say, but how we say it? There are a lot of variables at work here, of course. In ministry, my basic philosophy was to add something valuable and positive to what people already had, rather than taking something away. Convincing them that such a thing was valuable and positive was the challenge. An important factor in young earth creationism is the social context â a form of peer pressure. What Iâm hearing from science may ring true, but for me to âcome out of the closetâ with pro-science, pro-evolutionary views may lead to hassles with friends, family, and church that I would rather avoid.
I suppose every occupation has its challenges. But that looks like a mighty dicey bit of dancing you do. Good luck with that.
Very well put. âWe donât really care what you know, till we know that you care,â to quote the old adage.
"Atul Gawande says scientists should assert âthe true facts of good scienceâ and expose the âbad science tactics that are being used to mislead peopleâ. But thatâs only part of the story, and is closing the barn door too late.
"Because the charlatans have already recognised the need, and have built the communities that people crave. Tellingly, Gawande refers to the âscientific communityâ; and heâs absolutely right, there. Most science communication isnât about persuading people; itâs self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us, it says, arenât we clever? We are exclusive, we are a gang, we are family.
"Thatâs not communication. Itâs not changing minds and itâs certainly not winning hearts and minds.
âItâs tribalism.â (emphasis added)âTribalism is what the scientific community complains about in others; but we are all really tribalists.
I wish I could memorize that. Itâs almost gone from my mind already.
Tribalism permeates our society to the point where we normally donât notice it any more. Originally a survival strategy, now a liability to humanity as a whole. What we need, as one of my psych textbooks mentioned, is superordinate (generally agreed upon, widely shared) goals.
In the context of the science / faith relationship, I would hope that evangelical Christians could agree on defending the authority of scripture while acknowledging the legitimate contributions of science in understanding Godâs creation. Both / and. Not either / or.
Thanks, Phil. Updated manuscript submission in process.
Hi Gerald. I agree that the Bible should be our authority. But I wonder, in this evolutionary debate, whether we havenât simply taken sides on the basis of what our denominations or family traditions told us, instead of on what the Bible itself says. For example, in Gen 1, God commands the earth to âbring forthâ vegetation (vs 11) and living creatures (vs 24) which the earth does, and commands the waters to âswarm withâ creatures (vs 20). âBring forthâ and âswarm withâ imply some agency on the part of the earth and sea. Similarly, in chap 2, the first human being is called âAdamâ because he came from âadamahâ (Hebrew for soil). So there seems to be a nice tension in Gen 1-2 between God creating indirectly through creation, but ultimately being the true Creator. Notice also chapter 4:15-17 where, after Cain kills Abel (leaving only three people from the original story) Cain then goes to the land of Nod where his mark helps him avoid persecution, where he finds a wife and enough people to populate a city. Now we can try to rationalize or resolve these tensions all we want, but I think scripture itself asks us to live in them: that is, to see God as the true Creator and Source for all that exists, but who also works through creation to do it; and to see humanity as both being one people but also quite diverse in its origins and expressions. Re: evolution: it is no surprise to me that God created a creation that reflects its Creatorâi.e. that the earth has a limited, derivative creativity. Iâd be most surprised if it didnât. In fact if humans reflect Godâs image as Creator, why wouldnât the rest of creation (Genesis doesnât say âonlyâ humans reflect Godâs image in some way)? To make a claim like this seems to me to be the heart of faith, not a denial of God, or Godâs word.
Welcome to the forum, Cameron! Good to hear your voice. Certainly, I agree that God gives us a hint of what might be in the first chapters of Genesis. We still must be careful not to read too much into it as relates to science, as that is not the point of the writing. Your observation that we are asked to live in the tension rings true, as we also are asked to do so elsewhere in scripture, as we navigate justice and mercy, faith and doubt.
Please lay your cards on the table, and please clarify what you are attempting to say.
Dear Moderator. Iâd like to submit that we and on our own can decide whether the Bible can relate to science except with the Bible. As long as you can verify then we know that what it is saying is true or not.
And there are plenty of âscientificâ examples that have been proven true.
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Actually, Iâm sure I donât. So as you just wrote,
Iâm sorry. I meant to say that we can determine what the Bible has to say about science by using the Bible.
What ever processes that are offered, are assured to be true, as long as they do not contradict what God has revealed in His Word.
So you reject the theory that describes rainfall as it contradicts what God has revealed (God is the source of rain not the water cycle).
How does this contradict Godâs Word?
The statement about the cycle of water, can end just as that. Or the one who is a Christian can add that God created the water cycle.
Now, if I may ask. Are you a Christian, who believes that the Bible is Godâs Word?
Job 38:22-23
Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?
There are no storehouses in the atmosphere.
Just as a Christian can add God created evolution. No difference.
When individuals deny scientific findings, the consequences tend to be minimal. But when millions of people distrust science, and elect a government with similar views, the consequences can be severe, especially with regard to the environment.
In any of these discussions, can I plead that we recognize and acknowledge clear poetic and metaphorical language?
I seriously doubt the ancient Hebrews actually believed there was a literal, physical storehouse that held snow and hail⌠any more than they believed in a literal, physical uterus that caused ice.