This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/ard-louis-and-morgan-freeman-talk-about-science-and-god-on-national-geographic
- Use awe and wonder as a bridge-builder. Almost everyone has experienced a sense of awe when observing nature. Thus, it’s a natural (pun intended) starting point for conversation.
- Point to God as a theological explanation for the order and beauty of the whole world, rather than as a scientific explanation for one part of it.
- Resist the urge to “prove” God and instead invite people to see the world through the lens of the Christian worldview (to borrow language from C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath).
- Emphasize a loving relationship with God, through Christ, as the heart of our faith.
- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/ard-louis-and-morgan-freeman-talk-about-science-and-god-on-national-geographic#sthash.VKjbMH6K.dpuf
This is a very good article that raised some good questions. It deserves careful consideration that I will try to give to it.
Let me start with point 2) "Point to God is the theological explanation of the order and beauty of the whole world."
The problem with Dawkins and Dennett is that they claim the universe has no order and beaut, because it has no design. Therefore there is no basis for a meeting of minds. That is why I have singled out Dawkins’ Selfish Gene as a serious challenge to the Christian world view.
- "Emphasize a loving relationship with God, through Christ, as the heart of our faith."
That is great, but Darwin proved that this is counter to the ways of nature. The world is a hostile environment with no place for a loving Creator God.
BioLogos has taken up the task to refute Intelligent Design. While the ideology methodology is ID severely flawed, the fact is that Life and the Universe is intelligently designed. Thus BioLogos needs to work to correct the ideology and methodology of ID, but affirm the fact that the universe has order and beauty that are the result of the intelligent Creator Who designed the universe.
Point 2 makes a distinction between a theological explanation and a scientific and a theological explanation. It makes the theological explanation to be relational. However it should be pointed out that scientific explanations are also relational, rather than just physical, as are philosophical (rationa0 explanation.
This is the biggest issue. Reality is not dualistic, physical and spiritual, natural and supernatural. Reality is relational, physical, rational, and spiritual.
I haven’t seen the show. Is it available online?
Thanks for alerting us to this development! I am eager to see this episode!
It looks like you have to be a cable subscriber (to NatGeo channel, I assume) to be able to watch online. Boooooo.
We really wanted to embed the clip in the post, but alas, National Geographic did not release it. @sfmatheson is correct about the paywall.
On the response to point 4, one could argue that Darwin’s demonstration of this being counter to the way of nature is in fact evidence in support. If the fall is taken as a movement from a pursuit of mutual gain to one favoring personal gain at the expense of others (and eventually ourselves), then it makes perfect sense that a fallen world would be a hostile environment that has no place for a loving God.
Some conservative Christians do take the Darwinist evolutionary world as the fallen world of natural Man. This does make sense, except that it runs counter to both Christian and Darwinian thought.
The Bible says that God created the universe as “good,” until the Fall. Since then humans have sought salvation. Darwin saw the world as based on struggle the struggle for existence. While it maybe true that Eternal Life is the answer to that struggle, evolution does not have the moral dimension that this requires.
Darwinism does not have the true historical form (beginning, climax, and ending) needed for an ethical dimension. This is a serious problem for modern folks.
Caption: Walking with “God” in the garden.
I think the most dramatic episode of the series is Freeman’s visit with a modern Zoroastrian community.
According to those he spoke with, modern Evangelicals are more adamant about the Good vs. Evil dualism (introduced to messianic Judaism and primitive Christianity by the Persians) than the authentic Zoroastrians of today are.
I couldn’t get over how strange that was…