Christianity, Science, and what do we do with it all.

The discussion below is between me and a previous teacher. I thought it was very interesting and wanted to share it with the world.

Andrew :
I have an interesting question for you Professor, or any who would like to comment. In the last few years genetic research has been exploding and science is learning a lot that we never knew. The genetic explanation has been explained by many Christian scientists as the trump card nearly impossible to over come. Although many Christian scientists believed in evolution before, there are many more ascribing to this scientific theory. Recently Bruce Waltke a prominent theologian was let go from his university job for making a video that said the church would become a cult if they did not deal with the scientific data on evolution in some way. I know you were at one point a 6 day creationist, is this still a view you hold? Have you been following this field of science? I know C.S. Lewis believed in evolution, as is clear in his book the problem of pain, but will it be something you come to accept. I have become more inclined myself to accepting evolution, now please keep in mind that does not negate creation in anyway. I was just curious your thoughts?

Professor:
On the question of evolution, I'd encourage you to either go whole hog that direction or determine to suspend judgment for the next few years to allow yourself to be exposed to the sharper minds on both sides. (Have you run into David Berlinski yet, for instance?) The danger is you'll continue your slow drift towards evolution and get comfortably settled in. It may not "negate creation in any way" in your mind, but it certainly does in the mind of many, and naturally leads them towards a kind of nihilism. But I recognize Christians are split over this and will continue to be so.

By the way, Waltke wasn't "let go." According to Christianity Today, he resigned. From the outside, there may not seem to be a distinction, but being somewhat acquainted with his magnificent commentary on Proverbs, I think it's probably fair to say that it would be a distinction which matters to him. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/04/ot_scholar_bruc.html

Andrew:
Very interesting stuff I must confess. I do believe you are associating philosophical naturalism as necessary for evolution. I feel to place evolution as a debate hill on which we must fight for the last stand is to clearly elevate an issue hardly addressed in the bible to a level far above it's station. I did check out David Berlinski, and he has dried up in content. He wrote a book 2 years ago, I cannot find a more recent article. I was really curious to see how he dealt with the genetic mapping of our ancestors, through our own DNA. I was unable to find any articles addressing it. Is he still writing? Genetics is in a lot of ways the strongest argument science has for evolution. I would love for a Christian to take it on and explain it any other way, but they simply ignore it, or say it is wrong. It is pretty compelling stuff. Also few scientists today hold strictly to Darwin's view of evolution, and critics look at Darwin and disprove him as if to say- look I did it. There are certainly parts of his theory the modern science community has disbanded as they have become obviously false. Really interesting stuff. This is not a philosophical questions. It simply is not.

Professor:
The YouTube link below is to Berlinski, Buckley, and Phillip Johnson debating a team of the more famous evolutionists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI&feature=PlayList&p=64014337D0FFEF14&index=0&playnext=1

You wrote:

//This is not a philosophical questions. It simply is not. //

Are you certain on that? Wouldn't it perhaps be more accurate to say that while many people hold to the view that it isn't a philosophical question, others believe that it involves a combination of science and philosophy?

But I don't put the issue of evolution on the hill to which you refer. It appears to be a more passionate issue for you than me at this point. But that makes me curious about why/where/when the shift for you took place on this issue? Is there a professor at JBU who influenced you? Fellow students? Or was it from outside reading? Of course, the source doesn't invalidate your beliefs, but I'm curious as to how you ended up where you are.

Also, Waltke still believes in a historical Adam and Eve. Many theistic evolutionists do not. Which side of that divide do you come down on?

Andrew:
Did you watch those debates? I watched all 80 minutes today. I am sorry but from a scientific standpoint it seems as though the evolutionists won. The opposition was unable to do anything but ask the scientists to answer every question possible. Also Michael Behe's irreducible complexity has been entirely debunked especially in regards to bacterial Flagellum. Second Berlinski doesnt believe anything. He seems to me much closer to nihilism than the christian scientists. It really is not a political or philosophical question. I am not affirming darwinism or philosophical materialism, I am affirming that all we can study is what we have. That is scientific Naturalism. Completely and wholly different. I think that doing research with no bias requires scientific naturalism, it simply does.

here is a discussion on the bacterial flagellum.
http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/414/irreducible-complexity-of-bacterial-flagellum-debunked/

Professor:
Wow... I'm highly impressed that you took the time to watch those debates. Seriously. And it seems you and I have come to different conclusions about these matters.

But I'm still curious about a couple previous questions. How did you arrive at these conclusions? What was your journey? And on the issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve... where are you these days?

Andrew:
Well the major reason for my exploration was discussion about it in my biological sciences classes. JBU tries very hard to present science in a light that does not make Christians fall on one side or the other. They affirm both specific and general revelation. I had done my own personal research into carbon dating previously and found the science behind it compelling and accurate. So I have had a old earth view of the world for some time. The transition into accepting evolution has been encouraged by loads of evidence, but has hinged on three things. First the field of epigenetics. It is so new spell check doesn't recognize it. :) Epigenitics is the study of our DNA, specifically we are finding out that how we live our lives actually gets recorded in our DNA and our lifestyle affects our off spring. This provides an accurate explanation for me outside of "random mutations" Second I have come to understand that nearly no evolutionists today hold Darwin's theory to be all of evolution. Evolution by means of natural selection is one of four different ways for evolution to occur, but it still seems this is the only point the church fights against. Third the field of genetics as a whole has began to look at our DNA in order to trace origins. DNA is some really fascinating stuff. 90% of it is essentially Baggage that serves no purpose now, but actually is accounted for in evolution as dna used for past species. The 10% that is left actually lets us track changes and essentially go back and see the progression.

Aside from this is this over arching question. When I look at the world around me, what seems to best describe what I see? And there are several different models proposed. One would be that every species was created by God and has not changed evolutionarily at all. This is not supported in anyway by the fossil record or by genetics. Especially by the fact that only 1% of all of life still lives today and 99% of everything that has ever lived is dead. The second option is that God created species a certain way and they have all evolved slightly into perhaps variations of the same species. This as well does not explain the massive amount of data we have in different converging scientific fields. The third model is that God created certain animals, but perhaps a few kinds and these have evolved into all life today. This one already contains some evolution. And the fourth model is that all life on earth is related to a common ancestor. This does not mean that man come from apes, but that apes and man share a common ancestor in the past. This also does not try to explain in anyway where that first life came from, that is above our scientific powers of observation. We cannot explain in naturalistic terms how nothing can come from something. This is not the question. The question is if I look at the pool of data what best describes what I see. I feel the answer is evolution.

Now on Adam and Eve. I want to be very clear that this can NEVER be a scientific question. We will not be able to look at DNA or fossils to prove when the spirit of God entered man. It simply will not happen. I believe that I don't have a clue if there was a historical Adam and Eve. I have no problem with their being one, but I also would have no problem without one. When you read the bible as a speech act from one man to another, certainly guided by the holy spirit, I think we approach Genesis and we realize that Moses, or whoever wrote it, was not trying to write a scientific explanation of how the earth was formed, or a political explanation of how the first government was formed. Even C.S. Lewis viewed the Genesis account as ancient near east mythology, at least in genre. The point of Genesis is that GOD created all that we see, and not only that he didn't need anyone else to help. Also that Man is fallen. I do not believe Moses was trying to explain how everything came about or even how sin entered the world. Secondly I am aware of Paul's writing as to the Genesis account and I have no problem believing Paul saw Genesis as literal, and was wrong.

As I think about the debates, I can't help but realize that they were in a lot of ways they were speaking different languages. The creationists, were trying to argue a political and philosophical point, and the scientists were arguing on natural evidence.

The problem for me is what is practical. I look at Berlinski and he says that Mathematics and Physics require we can prove a theory as 100% true that makes it right, biology can't do this with evolution. This is not true. Science will never prove anything as true. Even physics is an explanation as to how we see things happening. Many different theories have been accepted in math and physics only to be rejected later on when we find different evidence. In evolution we have modified the theory and added, but there has been no major evidence agreed on by the scientific community to reject it. Berlinski also states that he will not be happy with evolution till every single transitional form is found. This is a silly argument stating I will not agree until I have not option other than to agree. Third he offers no alternative. The short earth creation model does not match the science we see in the world. If evolution is so wrong, why doesn't anyone find a better explanation. Christians certainly mostly stick their head in the sand and refuse to reason on the issue stating the bible as their reason for creation. Yet no Christian today believes the earth is the center of the Universe, yet many passages of scripture (especially psalms) clearly state this as a scientific fact. I realize it is a heated debate, I just don't see any Christians engaging in the discussion, Behe was a hero of mine 2 years ago, turns out science can explain every irreducibly complex system he has found. And the court system ruled against him. So what am I to do? Ignore the evidence? certainly not because it doesn't threaten any serious theological truth I hold.