A lot of science skepticism comes from simple science ignorance. Many so afflicted resent being told facts they had never heard before, and some of those lash out because they feel their worldview is under attack. I have found it impossible in online discussions to move beyond this point.
If, on the other hand, you have the opportunity to sit down with such a person and actually talk and relate, it is possible for them to begin to understand and also to see that their beliefs are not threatened by their new knowledge.
In a very real sense, the problem with entrenched opinion on any subject is not so much the person as it is that these days their only opportunity to become unentrenched is through a screen consisting of text and videos. And those just canât do the job.
I have never gone to a church âwith BioLogos views,â but in every church and Christian ministry circle I have been involved in, I have found individuals âwith BioLogos views.â (the family pastor of my BGC church, the wife of one of the most senior elders at that church, the wife of my Sunday school teacher at an SBC church I attended, and multiple colleagues in my Evangelical mission organization, for example) Most of them I knew for several years, some even for decades, before they ever let on what they thought and with almost every person I found out what they thought in the context of me âconfessingâ my own views. When there is a vocal minority of people who can get away with generally assuming everyone agrees with them, a disagreeing minority usually keeps quiet. But that doesnât mean everyone agrees with the vocal minority. As you have said, itâs not a âsafeâ topic in a lot of places and people are more guarded about who they talk about those views with.
I think if you can find a church that has some space for diversity on other peripheral theological issues (like the practice of charismatic gifts, or end times, or divorce) and some variety when it comes to non-theological things (like political affiliation, or economic level, or education level, or ethnic background) they are more likely not to be dogmatic about Genesis.
There are some churches where the more predominate voices heard from leadership or pulpit are what I would call âBiologos-friendlyâ - not because they necessarily know who or what âBiologosâ is, but just because they generally embrace consensus science and are the type of congregation where the anti-vaxxers or the climate-change deniers would be the ones who would quickly realize they are a minority voice who would get the cautious or disapproving looks. People from congregations like these would very easily and comfortably settle into generally supportive roles at places like Biologos. I know because I am one. But I canât begin to claim this is reflective of my denomination - not by a long shot, apparently, given that our wider national body apparently has a reputation for being science skeptics. It is more a reflection of my own particular congregation that meets in a university-dominated town and has as many of its members, people who work, teach, or do research in that educational world.
Where the local bread and butter comes from will probably drive attitudes around this stuff more than anything. Yes - there are many congregations in our same university town that would look very different than what I just described ⌠[and very deliberately, reactively so; our midwest urban community would also have no shortage of ICR enthusiasts too.] But nonetheless Iâll bet our wider community of congregations has more of a competitive mix of these varied political affiliations than other communities where the bread and butter is more from agriculture or local business owner/entrepreneur, and less from the education/research world. It is these types of economic drivers or professional interests that will probably do more to drive the favored tribal affiliations of a congregation, perhaps even more than the denominational nameplate you see above the door.
Dear Kate,
Thank you for writing to the forum. I hope you are encouraged by the fact that there are many of us around with these views, often hidden within churches of many different denominations. So you are not alone. I will be praying that you can find a supportive community of like-minded believers at your new location in South Florida.
This has been my experience, as well. We recently switched to a different, smaller Southern Baptist church, where we had first become friendly with the pastor and his wife, because they are our neighbors. I am not sure what beliefs people hold in that church, but I have the impression that they would be open to hearing mine. Actually, due to my recent negative experience, I was very upfront with the pastor about my views and let him know about how I have felt ostracized for my views in the past. Although the pastorâs views likely differ from mine, he read the article I wrote for BioLogos, said he was interested in reading more on their site. He seems to still respect me and is grateful to have our family as new members, so he must not think I am a heretic. In actuality, specific views on creation is a topic I have rarely discussed within Christian circles - its just something that does not come up much. Peoplesâ views on creation do not need to be forefront. If a particular view on creation is very prominent in a church or preached from the pulpit, I would find that to be problematic. Our focus should be on Jesus, salvation, and sanctification.
I also enjoy Tim Kellerâs sermon podcasts and books. I have found him to be supportive of the evolutionary creation perspective, or at least certain forms of theistic evolution. In chaper 6 of his book, âThe Reason for God,â (on p87 of my copy) he writes, âChristians may believe in evolution as a process without believing in âphilosophical naturalismââŚâ In fact, Tim Keller has endorsed BioLogos, with a quote on its homepage: https://biologos.org/ (just scroll down a bit to see his quote)
Many people have thought a great deal about how to understand Adam, Eve and the Fall from the evolutionary creation perspective and come to various different conclusions. (None are fully satisfactory, but I think that is OK. God doesnât seem to want us to understand everything right now, on this side of eternity.)
In fact, last year I attended an American Scientific Affiliation conference
https://network.asa3.org/
and heard Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, a professor from Washington University speak about his recent findings in computational genomics. His new calculations led him to conclude that it would be mathematically possible for Adam & Eve to have been the common ancestors of all humans. This was a view he had not previously held, but now does. Looks like he has a new book coming out on the topic (in December, 2019), which could be an interesting read. Hereâs a quote from the book jacket:
âBuilding on well-established but overlooked science, Swamidass explains how itâs possible for Adam and Eve to be rightly identified as the ancestors of everyone. His analysis opens up new possibilities for understanding Adam and Eve, consistent both with current scientific consensus and with traditional readings of Scripture.â
I posted these comments on a different BioLogos forum feed, but they seem to be relevant to this one, too:
The Bible is not a science textbook, but it tells us profound truths about who created us (a loving God). The Bible tells us that God made us to be in relationship with Him, that we are all sinners separated from God because of our failures to live up to His perfect plans for us, and that the only way we can be reconciled to Him is by believing that He sent His Son, Jesus, to die to redeem us from our sins.
God also gave us minds to reason, and God allows us to use science as a tool to understand His creation. If we cannot currently understand how the Bible and our scientific data fit together, it is due to our current limited abilities. But when we get to heaven, it will all be clear. In the meantime, we should be humble about what we know and what we do not know about how God created.
God was fully able to create the universe in 6 days, 6 thousand years, or 14 billion years. The truth is that God created. But exactly how God created will not be proven by science. Nor is the Bible meant to be a science textbook. God does not seem to want us to definitively prove His existence. Instead, God seems to want us to look at awe on His creation, faithfully trust His revealed Word, and believe that Christâs work on the cross is sufficient for our salvation.
My understanding of scripture leads me to believe that God likes to leave us with some mystery, which leads us to worship Him with awe and wonder. An example of Paul talking about mystery is found in many places, including
1 Corinthians 2:7 âwe declare Godâs wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.â
One example of a theological mystery is the paradox of free will versus election. A pastor of mine once told me that he thinks that God wants us to rejoice in the fact that we have free will AND and the same time be humbled by the fact that we were chosen by God and could not have been saved without Godâs work in our lives.
Thank you for your response, Richard. I agree with you on this one.
Thank you, Chris, I am glad you enjoyed my blog post. I appreciate you saying that!
This was Belzâs quote that I found to be particularly condescending: âIn the interest of not embarrassing them by reporting statistics that they might have to adjust again in a few weeks, weâll wait for the specific numbers.â
However, I found the piece in its entirety to be problematic in terms of promoting the false idea that there is a conflict between Religion and Science.
I fully agree with you. It is necessary for the integrity of science for us to adjust our theories based on new data. That being said, we also cannot just throw out data and observations in order to favor a particular religious interpretation. To accept a young earth view of creation, we need to ignore many major observations from multiple fields of science, including astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology and genetics. That is very difficult for me to stomach. If we donât understand how our our data fit our theology, we can simply be humble enough to be clear about what we know and what we do not yet know. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. God has left room for mystery.
My thoughts, if interestingâŚ
I for one am not skeptical of âscience,â but of many âscientistsâ and their interpretations, especially if their entire approach begs questions of issues related to faith by embracing a strictly naturalistic approach from the beginning, one which excludes supernatural as a possibility from consideration. If a scientist is for whatever reason unable or unwilling to simply âfollow the evidence wherever it leads,â then I remain skeptical of the conclusions arrived at.
I might recommend being gracious by refraining from labeling those who disagree with your particular understanding of science as âanti-scienceâ?
By definition science excludes the supernatural so why is that a problem?
The conclusions are perfectly fine for the questions for which science is capable of answering. What you want is for the scientists to provide a metaphysical answer which they can do. It just wont be supported by the science.
By definition, the critical approach to biblical history also excludes the supernatural. The conclusions of the Jesus seminar, for instance, were arrived at largely because they had excluded supernatural considerations entirely from their method.
And thus I reject their conclusions as question begging, because when they start with a method that excludes even considering possibility of the supernatural, I am unsurprised to find them arrive at a strictly naturalistic conclusion⌠determining that there was nothing supernatural about the historical Jesus!
All sound science should at least appear to have been done with a methodologically naturalistic approach, shouldnât it?
Nothing wrong with throwing in a little theological scholarship or speculation but I see no place for it in the science itself.
Science as a method of corse has its limits, and cannot put an angel under a microscope.
What I inherently object to is the larger approach of scientists who will use science and only science to arrive at their final conclusions about what is or is not true, and reject any considerations that could even remotely be tied to the supernatural.
Philosophical criticism of intelligent design I think is a perfect example. I personally find the intelligent design hypothesis to be entirely and completely within the boundaries of what science can and cannot do. I find it patently obvious that science, as science, Can determine the difference between strictly natural causes, and those which are intelligently designed, so long as we are making no theological conclusions about who that intelligent designer is.
But often I find the philosophical methods behind ID to be critiqued as unscientific, because they are allowing consideration of intelligent agency⌠Because the critic is assuming that said intelligent agent must be God. Essentially, this is allowing one very real possibility, the idea that said phenomenon is a result of intelligent agency â a conclusion that very well could be achieved by strictly science Scientific methods, to be removed from consideration absolutely.
Sure, historians can similarly not examine the miracles of Jesus and somehow determine them to have been supernatural in origin. But there is still a philosophical leap they make, When they conclude a naturalistic cause And reject even the possibility that supernatural factors could have been at work.
This is where I get confused by the ID movement⌠If, as a Christian, you believe God created and maintains natural processes, how do you even have a âstrictly natural causeâ? How do you determine if God is directly involving himself or not? What criteria do you use to determine that one thing is designed and one thing is not?
Iâm with you on the problems with the critical approach to Biblical history. History is very different from science though.
So there are natural causes and intelligent causes? What ever you propose as the intelligent agent has to be supernatural. They have been doing this for billions of years after all.
I believe that God, indeed, created and maintains all natural processes.
This would include the presumably purely natural storm, just like all the others that occurred through the ages in Palestine. But when Jesus told the storm to be quiet, and it obeyed him, this I would classify as having had a supernatural cause.
More to the point, if someone investigated that event, and decided that they were going to strictly adhere to methodological naturalism to arrive at their final conclusion⌠Then the logic is simply irresistible: if they arrive at a conclusion, they will conclude that this was not supernatural in origin.
Point remains⌠if God had ever intervened in the course of life to accomplish a certain feature or phenomenon that natural forces alone could never have achieved, and this phenomenon was examined by Scientists strictly adhering to methodological naturalism⌠If they ever arrived and stated their final conclusion on the matter, after having adhered to methodological naturalism, they would Unfailingly and invariably arrive at a naturalistic, and thus erroneous, conclusion. This is simply logically inescapable.
What criteria do the scientists at SETI use to ascertain whether a given radio signal is naturally occurring or if it is the result of âextra terrestrial intelligence?â I would think, philosophically, that there is at least some commonality between the two. I would grant all manner and sorts of qualifications and clarified differences of course, however, I must part ways with someone who says it is impossible to notice if a biological feature has been designed. We are approaching that period In our own history Where we may need to develop a certain forensic science of a sort to determine whether human genes are ânaturalâ or are the result of human design and intelligence.
Imagine a scenario where, in the next 500 years, we develop all manner of âdesigner genes,â These create all sorts of fancy biological advancements, carefully designed in our race. Then a nuclear holocaust destroys nearly all civilization. Then, 2000 years after that, scientists are again able to sequence the human genome, and one notices that certain genes, Seeming to have arisen de novo, Theyâre all the marks of having been purposefully designed to accomplish very special features.
Is it permissible for him to recognize those signs of intelligent design in that hypothetical human genome? Is that outside the realm of science?
Science, as science, has no need to identify any particular designer in order to tell if something was designed. A SETI scientist need make no presumption about the identity of any particular extraterrestrial intelligence if they ever did receive a signal that they found bore all marks of intelligent agency.
Otherwise, you have the absurd situation where a SETI scientist could legitimately recognize a signal as clearly exhibiting intelligence, unless said scientist, for some reason, believed the signal to the supernatural or divine in origin. At which point, he would magically be unable to recognize said design?
I donât think so. That some things in the world are designed is indisputable, those are the things men have created. Then there are regularities which arise without input from human beings such as crystals, beaver dams and honey combs. But we have, so far as I know, zero examples of design which show evidence of being designed in the way of manmade things but which were made by a supernatural being. I personally dismiss the supernatural as a category because there is not even one indisputable exemplar of such a thing. When you look at the natural world all you see are natural things.
I would agree that it indeed is within the realm of science to consider that, and something similar takes place when plants are examined for GMO content. Genes that are alien to their normal genome are identified and attributed to genetic engineering.
Now, is the inverse true? That is, if the examination of the genome reveals a difference between man and other species that is due to scientifically explainable processes acting on commonly held genes, does that preclude intelligent design?
If a metorologist was there and investigated that particular storm what they would determine is it is impossible for this to be the result of natural causes. Then you can call it supernatural. Same thing would apply to Lazarus walking out of a tomb. Same thing applies to SETI.
And here is the root problem for ID in my mind. ID must prove the feature could never be achieved by natural causes if you want to invoke God. Design doesnât matter if natural causes can create it.
Of course I believe God was involved. After all we do have the Bible telling us that. It is just He did it in such a way as to not leave any God fingerprints.
But if we found the exact same data set, or something essentially the same, but in something we know we didnât modify, weâd give at a naturalistic explanation, and simply chalk it up to âhorizontal gene transferâ or the like, no?
Then I assume you endorse, at least in principle, the methods of ID, even if you donât necessarily concur with their conclusions?
But then, to be consistent, youâd have to say the same about Jesusâ calming the storm, Lazarusâ resurrection, or a SETI phenomenon, no? The hypothetical investigator of these phenomena would have to prove they could never be achieved by natural causes if they wanted to call it supernatural?