This is the thread with the problem in wrong paraphrase of Deborah on 26 April that confuses the issue.
No, science is NOT and never has been “our best shot at understanding God’s Creation” as “God’s Creation” is a theological notion from the start. It is not a ‘scientific’ topic. This is the same mistake the ‘scientific creationists’ and ‘creation scientists’ made.
Can BioLogos not cleanse itself from this linguistic tick that exaggerates the power of science?
Will the person responsible come out from behind the curtain to admit this? Will BioLogos change their “habits of mind” in the wording?
Sir, it’s o.k. - it may take time to follow. The point is there. I’m aware of BioLogos’ mission. But your language, sir, is one-sided. BioLogos is just as “concerned with scientific notions as relates to theology,” is it not?
Read carefully: Best is the wrong word in the case of this thread. It does what is called privileging one type of knowledge ABOVE others. It dictates to others from one position (not a theological one). And this is exactly what the ideology of scientism intends to convey to people.
BioLogos is outwardly against scientism, yet in such language as the masked staff member used, the core message of BioLogos still contains tinges of that ideology.
Steve Schaffner, for example, argues that “I don’t think theology is our best shot at understanding God’s creation.”
To me, Phil, that goes too far; it is wrongly stated, even if he softened his language later. And now of course you know that I do think theology helps us to understand God’s Creation, so you know my bias. I guess what “I am afraid I do not understand” is your unwillingness to acknowledge such language over-pumping science or blanket dissing theology is too far for BioLogos to accept.
It’s the same reverberation of a “habit of mind” as in the not-yet-admitted error by the BioLogos staff member, now forum people just want to let slip away quietly…
I think I may see the problem. The word ‘creation’ can be either a noun or a verb. The noun, in the case of “God’s Creation,” would mean the world or universe, implying the physical if not stating it. The verb, on the other hand, would describe the act of God creating, which you would be correct to describe as the domain of theology rather than science.
I think the original sense that was meant was simply, “science is the best way of understanding (gaining knowledge about) God’s Creation (the natural world).” At least that is what I got from the statement originally and from @BradKramer’s, @cwhenderson’s, and @Alli’s subsequent comments.
Is your interpretation valid, too? Absolutely, I think both are valid, but it may help to understand the different ways it could be taken.
Pedant point: they’re both nouns. But as you say, the noun can mean either the act of creating or the product of that action. One is clearly a theological concept, the other not so much.
We all get it at this point that you think it was wrongly stated. Do you get it that almost everyone else here understood the intended meaning and is in basic agreement with the thought expressed? Your multiple attempts to stir up some kind of outrage over Deborah’s wording have been pretty futile. At what point do you give it up as a waste of time? It’s not that we don’t understand the point you’re making. We just don’t agree there is such a huge need to make the point at all.
All right, but until you’ve got a non-clunky way to say, ‘one is a noun that describes an action and the other is a noun describing noun-things,’ I’m keeping my original wording!
Thank you Lynn_Munter for attempting resolution. Yes, I think it can help distinguishing noun creation & verb to create/creating.
Probably we are in agreement that someone that is called “God” created more than just the natural world, right? If so, what else in your opinion did God create? In this sense God’s Creation is the “what else” that God created “than just the natural world”. Please help because I am sincerely interested in finding balance and harmony on this topic.
Maybe one can make a same grammatical suggestion of design & to design/designing to ID people, which they reject in the case of discussing the when, where, how and who of the verb to design & process of designing.
But perhaps I missed the point, as to me it means theology being treated seriously by natural scientists, not just as a fringe hobby for outsiders. I don’t want science called “best” for “understanding God’s Creation”, but rather one respectable way along with theology and many others of understanding God’s Created Universe. Please excuse if some people of the management or communicants here find that offensive.
So… do humans sleep in Heaven? Is there a view of the Earth? Do humans eat or wear clothing?
I would suggest that what you call theology has zero answers for questions about the most important part of Creation - - the afterlife.
If the afterlife does not enjoy the same level of importance in your view, what part of Creation do you think Theology actually describes well?
It appears to me what you keep calling “Creation” is not how anybody else uses the word. You seem to be talking about Morality and Righteousness and the nature of God Himself … rather than about Creation and things that are not God.
Why don’t you start a thread on the nature of God … to give yourself an outlet. Because your fixation on what you define as Creation doesn’t seem to be clarifying your point in the least.
The best way to understand God’s Creation is to understand the why, or purpose of that creation. That understanding cannot be separate to our understanding of God as Creator, and His Sovereignty over the creation, His transcendence and imminence - all of these and the Orthodox theological discussion of the energies which are ways of experiencing through prayer and reflection the imminence of God, are firstly the task of theology.
The study of the objects that constitute nature or the universe is the proper activity of the physical or natural sciences. These certainly may give us a deeper appreciation of the universe, and yet I, as a scientist, am more inclined to turn to poetry and art in experiencing such appreciation in a deeper way, but ultimately it is theological reflection that leads me to a meaningful sense regarding the Creation, and this is completed by thinking of the greatness of the Creator.
So I end up agreeing with the sentiment that the phrase in question (science is the best way to understand God’s Creation) could be articulated in a far ‘better’ manner…
So… by understanding the purpose of cars … I am best informed about Cars?
That doesn’t seem likely.
The Bible may be the best book for explaining the nature of God … but it doesn’t seem like a very good book for understanding anything God ever made … except perhaps, the moral dynamics of the adult human!
And while humans may be the pinnacle of God’s creation, they are hardly all of God’s creation… and we already know that the Bible is not a book that a surgeon would use.
The “best” way to understand cars is to become acquainted with those who make them and can drive them - after you may be impressed with those who describe them.
I must say, you have a unique talent for going from the sublime to the ridiculous with breathtaking speed - perhaps too many cars.
If I get your point, you are saying we all acknowledge God is the Creator, and this should be sufficient. The point that does not seem to come through is that a great deal of theology is available on the Creation and how we understand God as the Creator. To simply put so much understanding aside and than argue that science may be the best way to understand (and thus discuss) the Creation, is I suggest, startling to a Christian.
I have made comments on how phrases such as "God ordained evolution’, or ‘science is the best way to understand God’s creation’ can be seen as inappropriate, in that they place a theological inference to such activities. You and others may have another personal view and understanding on this, but I do not think many Christians would see it that way.
No, that wasn’t what I was saying. I was talking about the big, huge, hairy deal being made out of a quote that said science was the best way to study creation.
When ‘creation’ is being used as a synonym for ‘nature,’ it is entirely appropriate to say science is the best way to study it. That was the context. It was not really that controversial of a statement at all. It doesn’t need to be retracted or defended just because some people feel inclined to read a whole mess of theology into it.
Yet people are inclined to discuss this, of all places, on a site that deals with science at times, but mostly evolution (go figure). If is a “hairy deal” why the discussion? Just leave it.
(( Wha? How does he get from one point to the other?
(1) Evolution is a Science;
(2) the “big deal” is being made by those who come to these pages, “of all places” to argue that Science can be validly replaced by Biblical stories written to appeal to children;
(3) I’m still waiting to learn where in the Bible we learn about nature in a way that is superior to what science teaches us about nature.
Is the revival tent line too long now to expect that? ))
Well now, this is getting into the can of worms about how useful a distinction the one between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ is, and how much of the world consists of the ‘supernatural.’ I think you will find a wide range of opinions on the topic both within and outside of Christianity. My own (non-Christian) opinion is that the natural world successfully accounts for the vast majority of observations.
Earlier you brought up art and music as disciplines which would allow us to understand God’s creation in comparison to science. I think that music is a wonderful art and function of humanity, but I don’t think it should be categorized as supernatural or outside the natural world, and I think I would choose different words than ‘understanding’ to describe what it is best at.
