Where do Evolutionary Creationists draw the line between science and faith?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

I’ve been pondering Evolutionary Creationism a bit and believe that, of all the different branches of Christianity, this is the branch that is most likely to be accepted by the wider public (especially groups who historically oppose groups trying to twist science); we leave most elements of understanding the universe to science (I.e. the origins of life and the nature of the universe).

However, I notice that we still draw the line at two points: the universe (or multiverse) being created by God and Jesus being risen from the dead. I’m sure there are many groups that would continue to criticize us for such views (“isn’t it unscientific for a man to simply come back from the dead?”).

How would you respond to someone who criticizes Evolutionary Creationism for drawing the line here? Are we justified in limiting the scope of science to any extent?

2

“Simply”? Nothing simple about it!

1 Like
3

It really isn’t “a branch of Christianity”. It is just one way to interpret parts of the Bible. The remaining parts probably get interpreted differently by different groups. Ever notice the many discussions here on things not related to evolution?

There are questions which science can’t answer which limits the scope to some extent.

4 Likes
5

I just wanted to point out that scientific naturalism, while it is very influential on Western culture, is not the majority worldview of the world. So how much mileage a person gets out of “science and faith in dialogue” really depends a lot on if they start with some version of the conflict thesis. Many cultures of the world do not impose the same spiritual/physical or supernatural/natural dichotomies on reality, so evolutionary creation might not resolve the questions they are most bothered by. Evolutionary creation is a useful way to contextualize the gospel in cultures that privilege empirical evidence and scientific expertise the way modern Western cultures often do.

As other people have pointed out evolutionary creation isn’t a denomination, there are no unifying doctrines or ordained ministers, it’s just an approach to bringing two different discourses into dialogue. There are a diversity of views on the nature and scope of science, and there are a diversity of views on the nature and scope of Christian faith. So the intersection area is also a pretty big tent. As to your original question of “where do we draw the line” I think it’s probably better to think of the question as “where is the center?”

The center of the big evolutionary creation tent is “in the beginning God created everything” and “Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is coming” and “descent with modification is the best scientific model for explaining the diversity of life on earth.” But there are lots of ways to understand all of those statements that allow for diverse perspectives and might make people with differing evaluative criteria judge you as farther or closer to the center of the tent.

7 Likes
6

Evolutionary Creationism includes two assumptions: (1) God created, and (2) God seemed to use evolution as a method to create.
(1) is a matter of faith - you either believe God created, you do not believe God created, or you leave the question unanswered.

(1) is a fundamental question of faith while (2) is a technical one. If God created, He could have done it in many ways. By studying the ‘book of creation’ (nature), it is possible to make conclusions or at least, fact-based guestimates about the technical methods God used in creation. The point here is not evolution per se, it is the acceptance that the ‘book of creation’ can be used to study how God choosed to operate in the past.

EC does not claim that evolution is a central faith question, rather it accepts that we can make conclusions/questimates based on the study of creation. If the study of creation concludes that biological evolution has happened and is happening, then we can accept that evolution seems to be a mechanism that God used in creation. If the study of creation would conclude that the mechanisms were something else than biological evolution, or that the history of biological evolution is short, the supporters of EC would be willing to conclude that evolution does not seem to be a mechanism used by God in creation.

In that sense, EC is a bit misleading title. I understand the need to have a title that separates this interpretation from the versions of creationism that do not accept the use of the ‘book of creation’ as a source of reliable information about our past or do not accept that the ‘book of creation’ tells about a very long history of evolution on this globe.

EC differs especially from YEC in the basic assumption that we can use both books of God - biblical scriptures and the book of creation - in guiding how we should interpret the biblical texts. Supporters of YEC seem to assume that their modern worldview is the only acceptable guide for the interpretation of the Genesis.

2 Likes
7

I’ve decided I qualify as “TC” – textual creationist, in that I will assert neither more nor less than the text actually does. Since nothing in the text excludes evolution as God’s means, I cannot reject evolution.

2 Likes
8

I would tell them they’re misunderstanding evolutionary creationism. They are not any more “drawing lines” than anyone insisting that “it has been declared that nobody can jump 10 ft off the ground.” It isn’t a prescriptive law. It’s a descriptive observation based on what human muscles can and can’t do. Same with modern science and the tools it has available to it.

5 Likes
9

Where do you get your data for this assertion?

I see no reason to draw any line under God or His powers. Any line drawn is by the person and their beliefs.

Science is the human understanding of how the universe work(ed)s, as such it draws no conclusions about the God or powers that are beyond its observation or understanding.

In its basic form, all evolutionary Creation is, is the assertion that God did it. There are no lines to draw.

Richard

1 Like
10

I suppose that this was actually my viewpoint on it. I’m a bit more strict when it comes to the intersection of science and faith, and often only come back to the Bible for many essential elements, such as Creation and Salvation; many other elements I trust the natural explanation for.

11

You’ve got a false unity going here: you’re treating the Bible as an alternate set of data equivalent to scientific or historical data. The reality is that they are different types of information. The plainest difference is that even when the Bible mentions things that can be scientifically or historically evaluated it isn’t actually addressing anything scientific or historical, it is mentioning those things incidentally in pursuit of a theological point.

2 Likes
12

Hi BuffaloMax17,

I don’t think that either of those views are necessarily incompatible with scientific naturalism. I know naturalists who believe in “sciency” versions of both beliefs, cryonics/digital resurrection and the simulation hypothesis, respectively. I am not saying I agree that these ideas are theological compatible with the Christian doctrines of creation and the resurrection, but I do know people who do believe this. There are metaphysical materialists who believe that the Christian God is the programmer of the simulation and that the resurrection is correcting a software bug in the simulation. @Christy If we start a church of evolutionary creation, I volunteer to be archbishop…

4 Likes
13

It is a shame that such a trivial detail has become such a large stumbling block.

Richard

1 Like
14

Could you elaborate, please?

15

Okay. That actually helps a lot. Thank you so much for the clarification!

16

I think this is true, although in this country it won’t happen for a generation, at least. Evangelicals are tied at the hip to Republican politics and science denial (i.e. anti-vax, anti-climate change, etc.), and they will eventually go down with that ship. Some young folks raised in this era will turn away from the “evangelical faith” (put in quotes to emphasize its sectarian bias) and become atheists, some will become agnostic or non-practicing Christians, and some will become a different form of Christian than evangelical. How that all will shake out in the next 25 years I probably won’t live long enough to see.

I’ve got no problem with either of those lines in the sand, but every line in the sand has fuzzy edges instead of hard lines. You already included the first (universe or multiverse?). The second is what you mean by “risen” from the dead.

On the first, Evolutionary Creation asserts that God used evolution as a method of creation. It’s a Christian position that recognizes God as creator by whatever means God chose to employ. If we don’t believe God was the creator, I don’t know what’s left, but it’s not Christian. It’s a form of theism, maybe, but it doesn’t even rise to the level of deism.

On Jesus being raised from the dead, that’s the orthodox Christian position in the NT and the creeds. I used to regard liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong as heretics because they denied a physical resurrection. Honestly, nowadays I’m not so sure.

As Wittgenstein said, "Even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.”

1 Like
17

That’s quite unfortunate. What do you suppose the future of the Christian faith would be for the world once this happens? I know that Europe already has slumming numbers of believers.

18

Did you mean slumping numbers of believers? “Slumming” numbers of believers conjures quite a different image! :joy:

2 Likes
19

I think so, my apologies

20

Well to me it first depends on what you mean by evolutionary creationism. I use to use that term. I prefer Christian naturalism. But regardless terms always have to be explained. So I mostly just say I’m a Christian who approaches reality through naturalism. The supernatural essentially plays no role in my understanding of how the world works.

I had two fingers crushed off last year and they were turned to goo. It was extremely painful. This image is black and white and so perhaps not too gory. But not once did I think “why did god let this happen.” I knew why it happened. A 18/19 year old Mexican kid pushed buttons on a press with a die too that weights 1800lbs that moved 1.5 feet and back up twice in less than a second. He was barely awake, we came in at 3am and it was 9am and he was tired and we just got off break and he was still finishing whatever he was doing on his phone and not paying attention. Then reached over me and boom. Fingers turned to goo. Pain shooting up my hand and arm. Shock dulled it for a minute or two. I did not pray to God to somehow magically make the pulpy mess inside of my gloves supernaturally heal. Jesus may have let the blind see and brought back the dead but never heard of him regrowing an arm or fingers lol. Not unless you’re a religious octopus. The kid went into pure panic. Almost fainted. He was dizzy and losing control and freaking out. I had to stay calm, walk him in the opposite direction 300 feet to a manager to let the manager know my fingers are gone, this dude saw it and is possibly going to faint or something and someone needs to watch him, I can walk and I’m going to go get the other manager and let him know. I did not expect an angel to like fly me to the hospital or a whirlpool or chariot of fire to come down. I did not even expect an angel to keep the dude standing from cracking his head if he passed out.

In the army when I got hit and my back had fractures in it and my toes were broken and a hip was half out of its socket and bones in my hand ( the same hand ironically ) was poking out of the skin and I watched the driver speed off from an abandoned flight line 14 years ago I knew no angel then was going to help me. I could not stand up straight. Was losing a decent amount of blood. Broken bones in my foot was popping. I had to walk 3 miles back to base.

IMG_9132
IMG_91321920×2560 427 KB

None of that is to showcase what I’ve went though a few times but that I think for many deep down they don’t truly expect this super magical outcome in life. I mean sure as a kid I did. But you quickly realize God is probably not going to step in. Sometimes as a kid I felt disturbed by this. If he loves me, why does he not help out. I’m sure all the reglious kids from all the faiths wonder why. Jewish kids wonder why God is not stopping the bombs. The Palestinian kids are wondering why God is not stopping the bombs. The hindui kids are wondering it and even the Buddhist kids sit around and wonder why is something not helping.

So I think many of us when we are honest draw a line , even if it’s after the fact, that God mostly seems to stay out of stuff. At least not interfering in a blatant way. Though there are always stories. Always stories that seem like myth that happens.

You mentioned a line drawn at god creating the universe or multiverse. Even that’s blurry. I lean more towards god being a conscious that developed from organic materials much the way abiogensis brought life and consciousness to non living things. I imagine natural selection as ancient fusions occurred in deep space and new elements were created as energy changed forms that within that cloud of stuff somehow a supercomputer mind arose. This mind now sort of Bluetooth connects to us to guide us with stories. Maybe he happened in another universe and it transcends all of them. I don’t know and guess ultimately I don’t care. Maybe in death we will know. Maybe not. After all they might not even exist. It’s a hope. But I’m not alone. There are other Christian’s who believe God developed, evolved within this universe or another.

Take even Christ being resurrected. There are many thoughts on this. One is angrily resurrection. One is a spiritual resurrection meaning his body is indeed dust somewhere. But that something spiritual continued on. Others go even further and think that the resurrection is symbolic. He lives on through the passing of his stories. That he’s been dead and gone for 2,000 years yet billions still call him teacher and lord.

So there is not really a single line I can think of that is all inclusive and holds atleast one truth that every single Christian holds.

But if you’re talking about what is something almost all seem to believe in? Yeah almost all believe that God existed before the universe and that he played some sort of role in creating it and that Jesus was his son and incarnation who physically resurrected.

2 Likes
21

It all boils down to why people either need the science to be right or Genesis to be scientific (or the equivalent). IMHO neither is necessary. Science is human perception and understanding of what is around us. Science does not dictate anything. A scientific law is just a record of a regular result or finding. It is no different from someone studying the traffic on a railway and constructing a timetable. The trains run to the company timetable not the observed one.
Scripture does not dictate what God has done or can do. It is human observation and understanding.

The net result is “don’t sweat the small stuff!”

Science is not that important.

Richard

1 Like