You are here

Science/Theology

Integration of science & theology.

Be sure to bring your brain, Introduction

I'm going to do a series of posts that follow the path that I have followed so far on the issue of origins. I heartily recommend the Haarsmas' book as it provides a more complete discussion than I will have the attention span to provide.

Content: 

The God Delusion and Christmas

From an English 'net friend, Michael Roberts, reprinted from his church magazine with his permission:

Content: 
Holiday: 

Not the hill to die on

I'm checking out churches in my new home. I went to a church I had never been to yesterday to check it out. I'm not going to say which one or who was preaching since this post is not about this particular church or pastor, but a general problem I have seen in evangelical churches everywhere I've been.

Content: 

Stem Cells

Evangelical Christians have been accused of being anti-science for two reasons: opposing neo-Darwinian evolution and opposing embryonic stem cell research. While the former argument is fair, the latter is not.

Rich Blinne explains why.

Content: 
Technology: 

Science & Morality

Some very nice thinking from Iain Murray in The Corner:

I don't think [science can give us ready-made answers to difficult moral or political questions], and it's a really slippery slope to suggest it can.

RTWT.

Content: 

An Old Argument Ages Poorly

Here Chuck Colson blames it all on Darwin:
Because of Darwin’s theories, leading scientists in the early part of the twentieth century felt emboldened to propose radical ideas about how the sick or members of other races should be treated....Those ideas are still with us today
This is a tired old argument ("evolution led to eugenics, Nazism and communism") that has not gotten better with age. This irrational, intellectually dishonest, rant is not a credit to Colson, who has done much good in the past 30 years. Perfectly good scientific theories can be misapplied to ethics or philosophy (e.g., relativity) with bad results. Is that the fault of the theory? Yes, the Nazis appealed to Darwinism to justify much of their terror. It was more a sign of their irrationality than anything having to do with the scientific merits of the theory. Was the White Album responsible for the Manson murders?
Look at what happened to Terri Schiavo a week ago. It’s a good time for us to remind people of the social consequences of Darwinism as Weikart so well documents.
I am mystified to the relevance of the Schiavo case, unless Colson is just acting as a propagandist, using it to bring emotional support to his opinion. Some may use evolution to support arguments that people and animals are of equal worth, but that's not why Terri Schiavo was killed. No one would be allowed to treat an animal the way she was treated (and I don't mean just her last 2 weeks). If you want to blame it on the abortion culture, I'll listen, but evolution had nothing to do with this.
It’s bad enough to teach flawed theories in a classroom, but it gets downright dangerous when we let such theories lead us to a diminished view of human life and dignity.
I wonder what theory Colson thinks is "unflawed?" To my knowledge, there are (perhaps even widening) gaps in the understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. For instance, no one knows how, or even if, genetic codes (which are primarily protein recipes) are translated into physical morphologies. So what? If we require complete understanding of all underlying mechanisms before we accept a theory as useful (and worthy of being taught), science courses will be very short.
Content: 

Science & Theology, part 1

Science and theology are not rival points of view. We need not choose between a worldview that sees science complete in itself and theology as irrelevant and one that resists the encroachment of science into realms where theology alone should speak.
Content: 

Beyond the 'Evolution vs. Creation' Debate

This is an excellent lecture by Prof. Denis Lamoureux, a fellow with 3 (yikes!) doctorates (Dentistry, Theology, Biology, obtained in that order). He gives a good overview of the main categories of opinion on origins, as well as a personal testimony of his own experience in this area. It's very well done; it appears to be the outline of a book he's writing. It led me to order this book, which is the transcription of a debate between the professor and Philip Johnson, based on the latter's book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. I'll post a review once I've read it. One of the things I wanted to do in beginning to treat origins here, was to point out the sloppy terminology that is generally used in discusssing this issue. In his lecture, Prof. Lamoureux points out a couple of the worst examples. Creationism is taken by most people to mean what is more precisely termed Young Earth Creationism, a belief that the creation account in Genesis 1-2 should be taken to be literal history. As the professor explains, Creationism should really be understood merely as the belief in a Creator, without implying a method or timescale. This conflation assumes you know how if you know the who.
Content: 
Events Facts: 

ID in USA Today

In this article last week in the USA Today, Gerald Zelizer, a conservative rabbi, gives a fair and balanced discussion of the unending controversy on teaching about origins ("creation science" vs. evolution vs. "intelligent design").

This passage, though, I can't agree with:

Company: 
Published Medium: 
Content: 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer