hi Kendel…
in simple terms the most common complaint made by theistic evolution is the view that the bible is being interpreted incorrectly because science doesnt support any intrinsic biblical interpretations (ie those parts of the bible that are self revealing and which dissagree with science).
So what is often claimed by individuals is that bible readers are twisting and reading into scripture. Unfortunately, such a claim in light of self revealing bible doctrines is just wrong and stupid.
For example, what if science proves that God cannot possibly exist? The bible is quite self evident on the idea of God and even explains his character in great depth to us. If science were to prove there is no such thing as God, how then would a theistic evolutionist fit the scientific “there is no God” in with their philosophical beliefs? The only way it may be done is to then make the claim that readers putting their own interpretation of God into what is written in the bible. And so a concocted story begins…a philosophical belief is driven from outside of philosophy because it must fit the science!
If one is going to invest their lifes savings in Christianity, then inconsistencies in the foundation of the theology are front and centre in my mind…its like investing ones lifes savings into a ponzy scheme. It can be shown that money is made from a ponzy scheme…it only fails when someone breaks the cycle…so scientifically a ponzy scheme really is a great investment…and yet, when thinking philosophically and rationally about it, would you invest your lifes savings into one knowing that if the recruitment cycle stops it collapses?
I do not subscribe to the idea that our Christian philosophy is gained or even driven from science. Its a very difficult line because we know that architects have a certain philosophy in design and science is used in the realization of said design philosophy into something tangible, such as a building. I accept that dilemma…but i do not see the philosophy of religion in the same way an architect relates his philosophy to a building. The bible says that Gods aim for us is not in buildings…its in salvation. That suggests to me that building buildings through science is not what God claims we should be thinking about when trying to understand salvation.
Salvation is about Christ making atonement for sin so that we may be redeemed unto God.
Redemption is an interesting word…it signifies that something has been lost and is to be restored.
If suffering and death existed before than fall of Adam and Eve, what the heck are we being redeemed for/from? I do not agree that the bible can be read as an account of man suddely becoming self aware, doing something wrong as a result of immaturity, then needing salvation. The bible specifically tells us the complete opposite of that claim in the Israelite Sanctuary Service. God always educates his people and then gives them a choice. We have educated free will. The new testament goes to great lengths in talking about judgement and righteousness. We are only judged according to our knowledge…so an immature individual who has no idea that fornication or lusting after someone elses property is a sin is not judged by that lack of knowledge (now i accept that the holy spirit is that still small voice on all our shoulders…but lets not turn this into an essay about that dilemma…lets just suffice to say that originally in the first covenant it was the people who were to take on the responsibility of knowing with the help of the prophets…in the second it was God through the Holy Spirit.)
To simply answer the second question…i see theology and faith as coexisting but they are not identical. I agree that faith and science are different and i agree that faith must ignore science as Jent Kellog claims in her opening statement. I just dissagree with the idea that faith can ignore science…and then spend the next hour attempts to weld the two together!