Colossian Blog
October 18, 2012 | Andy Saur

Book Review – The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins

Book Review – The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions

 

The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 2011. Pp. 251

 

 

 

 

October 18th, 2012
By Michael Gulker, Executive Director, The Colossian Forum


Before reading The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions, one needs to appreciate the difficult task Karl Giberson took up in putting this book together.  The raw material for the book originated from a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” Francis Collins responded to after publishing his Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.  These FAQs eventually became the core of the BioLogos website.  When Collins was appointed head of the National Institutes of Health, Giberson inherited the unenviable task of translating these “Frequently Asked Questions” into a coherent, readable narrative.  Giberson’s skilled pen extends Collins’s project to create an acceptable public space for evangelicals who are also evolutionary creationists by arguing for the essential harmony between faith and science.  Although the harmony pronounced may be a bit premature, Collins puts to work the power of his scientific mind and the power of his conversion to clear roadblocks that prevent the smooth traffic of ideas, and even praise, between the language of science and the language of faith.

The authors presume that the faith/science controversy results largely from a few loud atheists who misconstrue “science” as inherently “anti-religious” and a few loud Christians who misconstrue “faith” as “anti-science.”  This allows the authors to quickly proclaim the good news that their book will disprove both groups (17-18) such that “the negative baggage of evolution can be tossed overboard without harm to the faith” (28).

The book nicely models what it hopes to achieve by opening and closing with worship that flows smoothly between the language of faith and the language of science.  Beginning with Genesis 1:1, Psalms, and hymns, the authors proclaim the wonder, majesty and beauty of God.  Then the text moves seamlessly from the church’s more traditional praise into scientific revelations of God’s glory, which have “uncovered the elegant and hidden foundations of our world” (16).  The authors proclaim that “the richest appreciation of creation requires that we ponder how the wonder encountered on the surface of the world relates to the beauty in the hidden patterns of nature, how the laws of physics illuminate the beauty of a sunset, … how genetics opens up the mysteries of life” (17).   While one wonders if knowledge of genetics rather than knowledge of the resurrection is “required” for the richest appreciation of creation, the two knowledges or languages, if rightly ordered, clearly have tremendous potential to increase our delight in the gift of creation.

The unusual blending of science and faith concludes in chapter nine with an extended doxology entitled, “The Grand Narrative of Creation.”  In this statement of praise, the authors attempt to “recast the scientific creation story to open up its grandeur” (216).  The ending returns to the beginning when “God created the heavens and the earth.”  After an awkward transition between scriptural and scientific language falling just short of harmony, the text moves into an elegant exposition of the interaction between quarks, leptons and the four forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear (216).  The authors praise the ordering Logos of John 1 for the astonishing development of these two particles and four forces from simple elements, stars, planets, increasingly complex molecules, and finally – life.  At the crown of creation and at the pinnacle of life is humanity in praise of its creator, putting into words for all heaven and earth to hear – “God saw that it was good” (221).  Even if one quibbles with the details of the new narrative, framing the entire conversation in worship seems a hopeful starting point for moving the conversation forward.

Between opening and closing worship, the book seeks to remove scientific and theological stumbling blocks that exclude evangelicals from worshipful participation in the “richest appreciation of creation.”  Dealing directly with issues of evolution and the age of the earth in the first two chapters opens up philosophical and theological questions engaged in the following six chapters.  Each chapter surveys a vast field of research, publishing, and debate as the authors clearly and persuasively introduce the reader to the “BioLogos” perspective that life (Bio) evolves by the ordering wisdom of God (Logos).  And this ordering wisdom, when uncovered by science, rightly leads to praise.

Chapter 1 asks what many evangelicals feel to be the central question in the faith and science debate, namely, “Do I Have to Believe in Evolution?”  And while the authors never answer the question directly, they do modestly suggest that when the majority of the scientific establishment speaks, Christians ought to at least give it an honest hearing, even if they are not required to believe what they hear (29).  Yet on that hearing, the authors believe evolution, rightly defined and stripped of its materialist metaphysics, is undeniable.  Presenting their scientific case, they locate the center of the controversy in a dichotomy between macro and microevolution (45).  The authors argue that this distinction, held to so vociferously by anti-evolutionists, simply breaks over the eons as micro-evolutionary changes eventually elide into macro-evolutionary changes and even new species (45).  Add to this the massive supporting weight of DNA evidence and the responsible thinker must recognize that evolution is as certain as a heliocentric universe (49).

Yet by writing off the dilemma as either ideological posturing or simple chronological naiveté, the authors may have missed an opportunity to open a dialogue about the question itself and why its enduring nature might prove significant theologically.  Instead of answering the question, “Do I Have to Believe in Evolution?”, the authors might have asked, “What Fears Are Preventing Christians From Believing in Evolution?”  What might the authors and their readers learn from the hesitation of their fellow believers?   Instead of only providing “Straight Answers to Genuine Questions,” the book might raise a few surprising genuine questions of its own.

Since chapter 1 presumes an ancient earth in order to overcome the dichotomy between micro and macroevolution, chapter 2 takes up the question “Can We Really Know the Earth Is Billions of Years Old?”  As the authors remind the reader, “A mountain of scientific data supports the idea that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old” (53).  As the authors display this data, they ask how it is then that so many evangelical Christians refuse to believe it.  Giberson and Collins suggest, “Young earth creationists often appear to be reading an anti-evolutionary agenda into the Bible and forcing it to fit assumptions they bring to the text” (54).  In their attempt to understand this agenda, the authors suggest that the enthusiastic and enduring reception of the position articulated in The Genesis Flood “seemed like the best way to simultaneously respect the Bible and fight off atheistic worldviews that were claiming support from evolution” (77).

Yet Giberson and Collins reject the young earth creationists’ (YEC) response to atheism as an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of Genesis.  They make their case against the YEC hermeneutic on two grounds.  The first is based on their understanding of historical and contemporary biblical scholarship, which they employ to deconstruct the anti-evolutionary agenda reading of the biblical text (69).  The second is based on the authors’ confession that “God’s revelation in nature, studied by science, should agree with God’s revelation in Scripture, studied by theology.  Since revelation from science is so crystal clear about the age of the earth, we believe we should think twice before embracing an approach to the Bible that contradicts this revelation” (70).  Again, one wonders whether the most helpful question to ask is “Can We Really Know the Earth Is Billions of Years Old?” when perhaps a more illuminative question might have been “Why Do So Many Christians Still Refuse to Know It?”   Perhaps one reason Christians refuse to believe “revelation from science” demanding they “think twice before embracing an approach to the Bible that contradicts this revelation” is because it is just this kind of hubristic claim equating science with “revelation” that repels them. For evangelicals, the Bible, and not science, is the source of God’s special revelation to humanity.  And nature, not science, is the source of general revelation.  The flat equivocation between science and revelation – general or special – will only draw ire.

Aware they have opened a serious can of worms, Giberson and Collins engage a different set of questions.  What exactly is the relationship between science and religion?  If God’s two revelations cannot be at odds, how are they to be reconciled?  What can we say and not say about God?  Why is Darwin’s theory so controversial?  And finally, what about evolution and human beings?  Can humans be both specially created in the image of God and simultaneously share a common ancestry with all other living organisms on earth?

The authors attempt to answer these questions with admirable grace and scientific expertise.   There is much to be commended in these chapters, such as their rejection of natural theology and Paley’s proofs (125-26).  And one simply cannot overstate the significance of the authors’ efforts to relate scientific and scriptural truth through the incarnation of Jesus, who enters into the natural order without violating it (115).  It is at this point where the authors depart from the deist, materialist metaphysics so troublingly ubiquitous in faith and science debates, embracing instead the exciting Christological conception of creation that provides a confessional grounding capable of adequately holding faith and science together.   This is a hopeful sign, a sign that if followed, could open exciting possibilities for BioLogos.  (For more on this exciting possibility, see TCF’s pamphlet, Come and See, an abridgment of the sixth chapter of Mark Noll’s Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind).

Despite these significant high points, the authors sometimes fail to discern the theological significance behind the questions they are seeking to answer.  In defense of the scientists, theological questions often come to them dressed up in scientific drag.  Yet even if their interlocutors mischaracterize their questions, giving scientific answers to theological questions creates new roadblocks between science and faith as quickly as the old roadblocks are removed.

The presumption of the book to quickly bring about harmony between faith and science risks belittling the genuine and profound theological questions the book so desperately seeks to engage.  The bottom line is that current mainstream science does in fact raise very serious theological questions that the church absolutely must wrestle through.  The church needs not only more straight answers but also more genuine questions.  Furthermore, the presumption that entrenched Christian resistance to evolutionary creationism can be reduced to a few loud Christians who misconstrue “faith” as “anti-science” risks cutting off the possibility that Christians who do not believe in evolution might still have gifts to offer their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Rather than presume that opposition to evolution is simply the result of mass deception by anti-evolutionary ideologues, the authors might have effectively spent more energy seeking to understand why so many Christians are taken in by such ideas.  One cannot help but wonder if extremists appeal to broader constituencies because they tap into real and unresolved conflicts for which adequate answers, scientific or otherwise, are not easily yet available.  Certainly, extremists might muddle the debate by misnaming or unhelpfully stoking those conflicts or fears.  Yet too easy a dismissal of those concerns might only extend the muddled misnaming.

This is not to say the authors ought to defer to the unhelpful extremist rhetoric pronouncing mainstream science and faith to be radically at odds.  In fact, one positive impact of this book and of the BioLogos project more generally is the clearing out of this sort of unhelpful rhetoric.  Yet the authors over-steer into rhetoric of their own when they presume to occupy an easy and harmonious middle ground between the faith and science.   In Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, John Hedley Brooke offers a slightly different set of categories by which one might better understand the debate.  Instead of casting the debate as primarily between faith and science, Brooke suggests the tensions lie primarily between those proclaiming eternal warfare between faith and science and those proclaiming complete harmony.  Either posture drastically oversimplifies the actual historical reality that the relationship and boundaries between faith and science are constantly in flux, always defining and redefining themselves and each other in the light of new historical experience and new scientific discoveries.

If the language of science and the language of faith are indeed always in flux, then it will require discernment of experts in both languages, guided by the Holy Spirit of truth and the sense of the faithful, to incorporate into the faith new historical experience and new scientific discoveries in ways that build up love of God and love of neighbor.  In other words, whether or not evolution actually threatens the Christian faith is a matter the church has been wrestling and will continue to wrestle with for some time.  Collins and Giberson are to be commended for the great service of generously sharing how they have integrated their confession and their profession.  They have opened a public space for evangelical scientists to raise questions about how to integrate the language of science and the language of faith.

Yet at some point, the language of science and the testimonies of scientists must be offered as gifts to the church, waiting for the church to respond in its own language.  Given the church’s rather lackluster capacity to receive such gifts makes this a risky endeavor.  But as Jesus passion taught us, love is always a risky affair.

In other words, what is required for the BioLogos perspective to evolve is not only more straight answers to genuine questions.  Rather, if more Christians are to be able to join in the praise with which the book opens and concludes, BioLogos will need to develop a deeper receptivity to questions science might not be able to answer – even questions that come from a young earth creationist.  The authors are obviously committed Christians, which means they are also committed to the belief that every member of the body is necessary to the church.  And this means all members of the body have something to contribute to the faith, even if one believes their science to be inadequate.  Now, what might that be?

Suggested Posts
Reflections on Unity
May 24, 2017 | Josh Webb
Reflections on Unity
As a soon-to-be college graduate who is looking forward to heading out into the world, I’ve realized that I’m inheriting an American society that is more polarized than ever. Republicans hate Democrats, Democrats hate Republicans, and all of us are suspicious of those Independents. As I think about where I may find my next church home, I often read the statements of faith that many churches now publish on their websites. I ask myself if it’s a liberal church or a conservative church. I wonder what position their members and leadership take on gay marriage or evolution. Sometimes, from just a simple glance at a church web page, I uncharitably conclude that, “These aren’t the type of Christians I want to worship with”. I assume that I am not alone in this. Yet are we not one church? Do we not eat at one table, kneel at one cross, praise but one name? Across political, socioeconomic, and geographic divides, all Christians claim the same good news: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us and was resurrected. How, then, do we account for the incredible differences in opinion among Christians today and what exactly do we do about it? The Apostle Paul compares the church to a human body. Like a human body, the body of Christ is made up of many parts. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul writes, “Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit”. Each part of the body brings a different perspective, a different understanding, and has a different role to play. But no part can function on its own and all must work together to survive. Even in the tremendous diversity of the body, by God's power there is unity. This unity in Christ has been hard to see in recent times. Christians of differing theological understandings have resorted to schism and isolation rather than attempting the hard work of confronting conflict. And while it may seem easier for rival factions to simply go their separate ways, where is the Christian witness in running from difficult situations? Is our belief in God's power so small that we cannot fathom the bridging of our differences? Is our commitment to Jesus' command to love one another really so weak? Paul's words admonish our actions: "The eye can never say to the hand, 'I don’t need you.' The head can’t say to the feet, 'I don’t need you.'" Our Christian witness is not found in our ability to agree on all things. We are not called to be a church of mindless clones. That is the witness of human culture, which forces individuals to choose between agreement or exclusion. Instead, our Christian witness is found in the fact that we are one body of many disagreeing parts. Our witness is found in our diversity, in our humility, in our graciousness, in our love for God, and in our love for one another. This is something the world cannot offer, for only God can hold together such a messy, marvelous body. As it is written in Colossians 1:17-18 (TCF’s namesake verse), “in Christ all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church ….” Even with Christ as the head, disagreements will still exist among believers. But Christians have a choice when it comes to conflict in their churches. And when we choose to let Christ hold us together, we choose to receive the blessing of his saving grace and the power of his resurrection. The spiritual death that is enmity, division, and suspicion can be turned into a renewed life of love, unity, and understanding. I've seen it happen in my own life. I work at a church whose theological and political leanings differ from mine. Over the years, I've found myself becoming more critical and less gracious in my thoughts toward my church. But God has been working on my heart, and while I still don't agree with some of my church family, I've started loving them in a new way. Instead of loving my church family despite our disagreements, I've somehow come to love them because of those disagreements. I'm beginning to realize that my brothers and sisters who disagree with me are not some sort of trial or hardship, but an example of God's grace in my life. How else are we to experience God's grace and power if not through his ability to renew our lives in the midst of conflict and disagreement? I have been blessed with the time I've had as an intern at The Colossian Forum. My experience here has helped me come to a new understanding of what it means to be a part of the body of Christ. As I move forward into this next chapter of my life, I pray for opportunities to put this new perspective into practice, trusting that all things truly will hold together in Christ.
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
May 17, 2017 | Jennifer Vander Molen
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
This article originally appeared on May 8, 2017, in Convivium, a publication of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca. Thanks for the mention! Controversy over religion and science is nothing new. That’s certainly true in the world of education. Indeed, a recent commentary in the Washington Post lamented 60 examples of what the author called “anti-science education legislation” that could affect what American students are taught regarding the evolution-creation debate and global warming. We may even see the odd flare-up of such conflict in Canada. So, it’s not surprising that public skepticism abounds regarding the ability of religious schools – evangelical Christian schools in particular – to teach science. However, new research by the Cardus Religious Schools Initiative (CRSI) at the University of Notre Dame offers evidence that such skepticism is ill founded. In their newly released paper, Blinded by Religion? Religious School Graduates and Perceptions of Science in Young Adulthood , researchers Jonathan Schwartz and David Sikkink examined religious school graduates’ orientations toward science. Using the latest Cardus Education Survey data from Canada and the United States, they analyzed graduates’ views on a range of subjects, including science, creation vs. evolution, and the number of science courses taken. They found that graduates of religious schools do sometimes hold distinct views on science as compared to public school graduates. But these distinctions aren’t uniform across the board. Neither are they the kinds of distinctions that would inspire popular caricatures of religious school grads as simpletons who believe in a flat Earth. In fact, when it comes to taking science courses, you’d be hard-pressed to find much difference between Canadian religious and public school graduates. Controlling for family background and parental education, Schwartz and Sikkink found that “students at private religious schools enroll in science classes at a similar rate to public school peers in Canada.” The distinction in the United States, meanwhile, is that only homeschoolers (religious and non-religious) were the least likely of all students to have taken courses in biology, chemistry, or physics, or to have had at least three science courses throughout high school. There was little to distinguish American graduates of private Christian schools from their public school counterparts in that regard. What about attitudes toward scientists? You might expect some animosity towards them from religious grads, but you wouldn’t find it in Canada. “Generally speaking, Canadians hold scientists in similar esteem regardless of their high school educational context,” say the researchers. It’s a slightly different picture in the United States. There, graduates of evangelical Protestant schools tend to be less trusting of scientists and assign a lower value to their social contributions than public school grads do. That’s a difference to be sure, but hardly a unique or problematic one from a social point of view. The battle over whether to teach creationist critiques of evolutionary theory is certainly sharper in the United States than in Canada. And that seems to emerge in the research as well. “In Canada, school sector does not on its own increase an individual’s belief in literal versions of creationism, but the U.S. case differs,” write Schwartz and Sikkink. American grads of evangelical Protestant high schools were found to be “more likely to adhere to a literal version of creation than their public high school peers.” What they couldn’t determine, though, was whether this was the result of teaching in science class, or an indirect result of the students’ religious and social lives. In short, it will take more research to draw conclusions about whether these schools actually make much difference in graduates’ creationist views. What about perceived conflicts between religious beliefs and science? On this question, both in Canada and in the U.S., there is little evidence to show that the type of school a student attended affects their likelihood to sense a science-religion conflict. However, the researchers did find that the more high school science courses Canadian students take, the more likely they are to perceive a conflict between science and religion. Notably, though, that holds regardless of which type of school they attended. So, this could be the result of a cultural difference between Canadians and Americans. While the science-religion conflict does not come up in a big way in this research, that’s not to say that perceptions of conflict don’t exist. Some educators are taking steps to equip themselves to handle such issues in the classroom, as evidenced by the creation of the FAST (Faith and Science Teaching) Curriculum developed by the Kuyers Institute and The Colossian Forum. The curriculum aims to help teachers lead their students into studying the intersection of faith and science, possibly reducing perceptions of conflict in the process. Meanwhile, William T. Cavanaugh, DePaul University theology professor, and James K. A. Smith, editor-in-chief of Cardus’s public theology journal Comment , have co-edited a new book that tackles related issues from a different angle. Evolution and the Fall examines the implications for a Christian understanding of creation and the entry of sin into the world if the widely accepted view of humanity’s evolutionary origins are true. Its provocative premise lays bare issues that Christians will inevitably have to deal with. All in all, we do see some differences between graduates of private Christians schools and public school graduates. But they aren’t all that stark or as shocking. If anything, this latest piece of CRSI research is perhaps our strongest indicator yet that Christian schools in Canada and the United States don’t have as troubled a relationship with science as many would expect. What’s more, there are efforts within the wider Christian community to bridge what perceived gaps do exist between faith and science.  In time, the research and bridge-building efforts may increase understanding and support for the vital place that religious schools hold in the education systems of both Canada and the U.S.