I agree with you you completely. Since when is skepticism a bad thing? We do have to guard against it progressing to cynicism however. Paul instructs Timothy to beware false teaching. What is true for spiritual things can be projected into secular matters as well. And following that, Paul states in 1 Timothy verse 5,“The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”
Love.
Well, since you asked … from where I sit does seem that the belief that there is an all knowing being intimately concerned with your well being whose good favor you work hard to maintain might set one up for trusting a tad too much at times.
Sadly too often not enough when it comes to the authority of qualified scientists. But sometimes too much in relying on one own judgment of theological questions based on an untutored reading of the Bible. Neither is necessary as one sees readily amongst the better educated but that education and level of understanding is not well distributed.
1 Like
I agree, though it is possible to go overboard with skepticism. When I investigated YEC after encountering too many science and history questions that weren’t adding up (while homeschooling my kids), I went overly skeptical and questioned everything to the point of becoming an atheist. Skepticism isn’t always healthy.
I am a Christian now, and remain skeptical about YEC arguments after seeing too much dishonesty, misrepresentation, and leaving out information in the big YEC organizations’ articles and books written by “creation scientists”. I cannot trust them, especially when they have to sign a faith statement that their “science” will always conform to a specific predetermined conclusion.
A friend of mine is a registered dietitian, and she has many times said how much she hates her field because of the always changing recommendations based on studies. I imagine one the hardest things about studying human nutrition is that you can’t just keep a human in a lab and feed them only what you want to feed them. They are out in the world, eating things from various sources. And even if you provide them food, can you really trust them all not to go outside that diet and sneak in something they really like? And when questioning people about how they eat, how many are completely honest? Oh yes, I’m eating plenty of vegetables… while I’ve had a 1/2 cup of broccoli as the sole vegetable for the day. 
1 Like
And now,for something different as far as an approach to the dialogue, Randal Rauser argues that we should just avoid it, at least in the setting of public forums. (Though I suspect he is still in favor of personal conversations.)
https://randalrauser.com/2019/09/on-ham-fisted-young-earth-creationism/?fbclid=IwAR2_4etsA_BvYbRp8TatXWXRpgb1p5YmQ6ldngMug2jvOB0Z8rFp9ez-jOs
2 Likes
I think he is advocating not publicly taking on people like Ken Ham who have no insight into where God’s word ends and their own interpretation takes off. By denying the science and questioning the Christianity of those who challenge (his interpretation of) God’s word he has isolated himself from challenge. But Ham has set his gullible followers on a course that actually makes their own faith more fragile.
People like Ken Ham have done enough damage already. They don’t need another opportunity to do more. And that’s why I don’t think people like this deserve a platform in the public square, including on programs like Unbelievable .
1 Like
Dear Phil,
My comment was against mainstream medicine, using only one of many examples of how we can heal ourselves instead of popping scientifically tested pills. Pills that treat symptoms for some statistical majority but do nothing to correct the underlying cause of chronic ailments. There is no motivation for medical science to put themselves out of business by helping people to take better care of themselves. Read Dr. Edward Bach’s Heal Thyself and you see that the situation has not changed in centuries.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Great blog post, thanks for sharing. Randal makes great points, but denying people the option to speak in a public forum (even if we disagree) sounds far too much like deplatforming. A worrying denial of free-speech which has been (tragically) on the rise in UK universities of late.
In a similar vein to the link above, readers may enjoy this series of blog posts by Ian Panth. He covers the points that Randal’s blog post does and many, many more in much greater detail. I found them extremely helpful as I was exploring alternatives to YEC. Actually, that is probably an understatement.
If you only have time for one, read this one:
1 Like
My impression is just the opposite: alternative medicine that works and has data to back it up becomes traditional medicine, whereas the other remains in the realm of snake oil and quackery. Certainly big business has been at fault manipulating data and marketing dubious products, but today big business is now the supplement and alternative medicine industry, pretty much totally unregulated.
Which is pretty far of topic, so let’s agree to disagree on that, and return to the related subject of how to graciously approach science skeptics. Perhaps again, with love and humility. Agreeing with past errors made, and directing towards how to avoid those mistakes in the future, and teaching how to recognize the logs in our own eyes. All the time, being motivated by love in having the best interest of those we are talking to at heart.
1 Like
Thanks or posting. From the last article,“Like David Hume, AIG places a great deal of emphasis on our immediate sensory experience in contrast to our “extrapolations” (or inferences) about the causes of what we see.”
This attitude along with the view that scientific findings are relative rather than concrete, are sometime held in common with post-modernism. While Hamm certainly accepts the Bible as having absolute truths, it is interesting how post modern thought dominates his view of science. Perhaps that is part of the attraction, as post-modernism has a big role in contemporary thought in general. I admit however that my knowledge in this area is woefully shallow.
Dear Phil,
I do a agree to disagree as I am speaking of regulated medications resulting from clinical trials. The opioid crisis came from misuse of clinical medications, not supplements.
Sadly, there can be abuse (even unintentional) of powerful medications, even with best of intentions. There was a poorly supported study misinterpreted and misapplied, implying safety in narcotics, that led to this. Many felt that doctors were ignoring pain, and thought this would solve the problem. It was a case of politics driving science, not mainstream medicine treating things well. I well remember this when in med school in 1999-2000; JCAHO threatened to take docs out of business if they didn’t offer meds that were, at least according to the thought of the day, safer than we had thought. We would do well to learn from it, but we should follow orthodox testing more, not less. Thanks.
Doctors used to use nux vomica, which was an “herb” source of strychnine, to stimulate the system; and bleed people to balance the humors as late as the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It’s putting us to the scientific test that helped us stop these bad interventions. Scary how much we still do wrong.
1 Like
Though that largely is a result of greed and marketing, not the underlying science. It does play to the human desire to seek easy or special answers and "magic " solutions to physical or psychic pain, appealing to the secular equivalent of Gnosticism.
To some extent, Gnosticism plays a role in the thought process in the origins debate, where each group can be deluded in thinking they have special knowledge.
2 Likes
Hi Michelle,
I liked your post. I will never be at home in any church in my area. Either they have a high view of Scripture and are skeptical about science or vice versa. My family and I find ourselves “tenting” among other believers, holding our tongues to maintain fellowship, and sharing our views only when another believer shows signs of open mindedness about science, which is almost never.
As to your questions:
- Culture war. Science is based in universities, which are in the camp of the enemy in the minds of many Evangelicals. Additionally, science seems to underwrite environmentalism, which is Satanic nonsense to the same people.
In addition, many Evangelicals measure faith according to how much evidence a believer is willing to reject in order to cling to as literal an interpretation of Scripture as possible. That’s one of the reasons why presenting evidence to these people is such a pointless exercise.
Finally, if believers accepted science about geology and biology, they might feel compelled to consider textual and historical criticism of the Bible more generally. They have the feeling that to tug on one thread will unravel the whole sweater, and I have some sympathy because there is little good teaching to prepare them to handle those explorations and still maintain faith.
-
When you find out, please let me know. Forgive me if I sound pessimistic, but I’m older than you and I’ve seen how persistent and resistant the problem is.
-
I generally avoid such encounters because they are so fraught and futile. However, if I have no choice I will arrange to talk to someone in an absolutely private setting and warn them that what I say might shock and disturb them. Then after I share my views as gently as possible, I give God thanks if they still consider me a fellow believer.
On another note, we can point out that although scientific consensus may change or prove to be in error, it needs to be viewed against the backdrop of competing claims. In other words, expert opinion is more likely to be right than are intuition, tradition, and other sources of information on a particular subject.
5 Likes
Hello Michelle,
Sorry about being late to this, I’m not here as often as I used to be (to the rejoice of many I’m sure) but saw this in a Biologos email and found your article interesting. BTW, fellow native-New Englander here.
IMHO, mistaken notions of early Genesis.
I’m fortunate that I don’t have any Christian friends who look down on, “science” in general, through some might not agree with some aspects of it, like evolution. I find that when a church is focused on being like Jesus as much as possible in every possible way, views on creation are seen as a matter of opinion and not considered an important part of the faith.
I just graciously plant little seeds here and there and hope that they grow.
3 Likes
that’s a really encouraging observation. Thanks for your thoughts.
1 Like
Hi everyone,
I am new to blogging and new to this forum. I am from NYC but I am presently living in South Florida.
I have never found anyone who does not take a literal take on Genesis. If I bring up the fact that I think
the origins of human beings are different from Christians pretty much everywhere… even NYC. Anyway,I almost wish I hadn’t started asking questions about the Bible and origins because it has been so challenging to understand Adam and Eve and the Fall using Evolution, however, I realize that Evolution is no longer a theory but a fact. If I bring up the biologos’ view on some things in the Bible, I am told that I am in error, the Bible is infallible and I am basically a heretic and honestly I find people do not want to be around me. I have never found a church that believes in Evolution and I have lived in many states and have searched but there are none to be found …unless maybe one moves to Michigan where Biologos is located. I feel so alone with this view and I really don’t know what to do about it. Just venting. Thanks.
3 Likes
Hi, Kate - and welcome to the forum here. I’m sorry to hear about how difficult it has been for you to find good fellowship.
I don’t doubt there are many communities and even larger regions in some parts of the country where the only opinions expressed strongly will probably be the ones that conform to the expectations of the local culture. Though I’m sure NYC should have a great variety of communities that take both science and Christianity seriously.
Perhaps in searching about, it may not be wise to put this particular issue out in front as a foremost and pre-emptive concern. There are a lot of people who may entertain doubts of their own, but if asked point blank what they think on a controversial issue, they may just fall back on what they think is the “acceptable” answer - or maybe even just rehearse what they mistakenly think you want to hear. I’m not saying this is happening to you - I have no way of knowing. But I do know that learning what is really in someone’s heart takes a bit of effort, time, and trust building.
But meanwhile, hopefully we can provide some good online fellowship right here in the forum!
-Merv
1 Like
Dear Kate,
The European Christin churches are ahead of the US, they have been emptying for the last few decades. The message that modern Christianity has to offer is illogical at best, regardless of the sect preaching it. The longterm outlook for Christianity is a new beginning at some time in the future. Trying to reform what exists is hopeless. But that does not mean there is no hope.I have a very small circle of like-minded spiritual Christians. I hope you can find your own circle.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Welcome to the forum, Kate. You aren’t alone in feeling alone on this topic, but it can still be an isolating experience. I hope you find the topics and discussion useful here – feel free to create a topic if there’s something specific you’d like to see addressed.
As I’ve moved from holding a young-earth belief to more of an evolutionary-creation one, I’ve found that for me it’s been best to let go of trying to understand every detail of the first few chapters of Genesis – that was something that was considered very important before, because it was all about having the right “answers” for everything in order to “defend” the Bible, but that can be a dead end. I hope you’re able to find a church that you feel you fit in – I wonder whether some mainline denominations would be more accepting of evolution than more conservative ones, but that depends on what you’re looking for.
Thanks for all your responses. Surprisingly, even in a progressive city like NYC, I was still hard pressed
to find a church that had Biologos views. We attended Tim Kellor’s church ( Redeemer Presbyterian) and he is a brilliant person and has written many excellent books, but he does not
endorse evolution. I still wish I could find a faith community down here in South Florida… but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. Like I said, life was much easier when I just believed the Bible literally.
1 Like