Above is an article published over at Panda’s Thumb. The author, Jamie Jensen, argues that believers want a bridge between their religious beliefs and science.
“What occurred to me is that people want a bridge. They want the science and their faith to make sense.”
After much study, Jensen thinks that the best way to build this bridge is to discuss the limits of science and how it is done:
“How do we help students build a bridge on a solid scientific foundation? And is it always possible? To answer the second part of the question first: in some cases, with extreme biblical literalist beliefs or specifically contradictory doctrine, a bridge may not be possible. However, in cases where this direct contradiction does not exist, I believe that it is possible to fortify their bridge. Here would be my advice: (a) Facilitate an accurate understanding of the nature and limitations of science. Research clearly shows that an understanding of the nature of science is one of the largest predictors of evolution acceptance (Dunk et al. 2019 provides a good overview).”
Overall, it’s a really good article and in line with many positions voiced here at BioLogos.
Nice, but I think it lacks for being able to present reasons why not to read the Creation stories literally and that doing it that way is still faithful (heck, it’s more faithful) to the Bible. Just saying “You don’t have to read it literally” seems like a sort of cheat without showing why that’s a solid approach.
I think it gets worse than that…this article attempts to reason that scientific solutions fix epistomologically driven literalism…thats an absurd claim which will fail before it even obtains funding! We know it fails because ome only has to look at Islam…rarely is a Muslim converted out of that false world wiew via science.
The ONLY way this works successfully is when plain biblical statements are matched by science (not the other way round).
One can play the game of pretend all they like, its pretty obvious what the bible themes all say about how we got here, in what state we were when we were created, numerous historical biblical timelines pointing to the age of the earth…none of that can be rationally explained away.
So in the end, the bible is either 100% correct or its 100% wrong. Authenticity demands consistency there and our kids aren’t so stupid as to accept dumb explainations as to why the bible timeline is wrong.
Separate the magisteria. That can only work, as it does, for the bicameral minds of the leaders of BioLogos and the like; the McGraths, Polkinghorne (Decd.). The elephant of faith is still in charge, in every way, of course, but the mahout, as ever, is comfortable.
True for many, particularly for those who cannot stand the tension, but I think a third path is available, to become comfortable with uncertainty and contradiction. Perhaps a bridge is not built in that case, but a ferry allows you to cross the divide. Enns seems to champion that solution, with the ferry he calls Wisdom. Many also cope by denial that a river is there. (Denial is not just a river in Egypt…)
Boy talk about a false dichotomy. How about the Bible is 100% correct in the message it intends to convey. And given the Bible never says it intends to provide scientific truth (something that didn’t exist when written) there is no conflict with modern science.
Apart from, asking “Who care about Evolution?”
(Not as many as might be claimed on this forum)
I would temper that slightly.
Research clearly shows that an understanding of the nature of science in the scientific manner is one of the largest predictors of evolution acceptance
Once you get sucked in there seems to be no escape.
No, the only way this works is to admit that the opening of Genesis was never meant to be read as a science report the way YEC does. When the text is read as what it is, science falls into its place easily.
There are none. This has been recognized for centuries, but some people insist on going backwards.
I am sorry Adam, but that dichotomy is false. Very little in this world is 100% correct (efficient). None of the disciples were perfect, David wasn’t perfect> God has show Himslef capable of using the imperfect. There is no justification for claiming that Scriture is in any way perfect, or inerrant, or historically accurate from Verse 1.
This business of needing Scripture to be 100% accurate is just an excuse for lazy theology.
Even that is debatable if you compare across the whole of Scripture.
Exactly. You don’t get correct if you stop at the OT or even at the NT. It appears we have a growing appreciation of the Scriptures over time due to the working of the Holy Spirit.
The message depends on the person so you have to work out what you think is the message.
In the article it speaks of a “literal biblical interpretation” but it does not address the question of what language you are supposed to be “literal” in. Isn’t a literal biblical interpretation in the language of modern English a bit absurd?
It’s a solid approach using reason from knowledge. Using a solid approach. For 80% of humanity at least that is culturally, intellectually, emotionally, morally impossible. As this site demonstrates.
Absolutely Richard. It can be as necessary as it likes, but it’s absolutely impossible. The spectrum is so vast and multi-dimensional and there is barely any overlap in any regard whatsoever. Apart from fellow feeling, which is a struggle to say the least, in cyberspace..
