The Future of Theology

For many, many people of faith, revelation is not just a personal matter - the Bible is viewed as revelation from God that is public, accurate and historically verifiable.

As an example, consider the religious conflict between the prophets of the LORD and the prophets of Baal (from 1 Kings 18).

22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.

The story goes on to show that Baal could not get the fire going, but that the LORD could. I hope that this story makes it clear that religion is not just something that is carried in the heart- and it is the same today - for the large group of religious conservatives the world over, God impacts the natural world in a tangible and powerful way.

You see the difficulty - the conflicts over the age of the earth and the common ancestry of life go right to the heart of what the Bible is, and the kinds of truth it contains. For many conservatives, the Bible contains the inerrant word of God. In this frame of reference, there is no easy way to sort truth statements between literal and figurative, historically / culturally bound and transcendent, or valid for only a brief time and eternally true. To question one part of the Bible is to bring the entire Bible into question.

Science has made people look at religion and faith in God in new ways. Many of the traditional ways of thinking about God predates the scientific revolution, and the traditional conservative approach to faith reflects that.

Before science, the Bible explained not just why the world came into being, but how. It was not only the standard for belief and daily life conduct – is was also viewed as containing accurate information about the natural world. The scientific revolution changed that - and in the process removed a huge swath of influence and power from the religious domain to the secular one. The conservative church is not just protesting that the Bible is right when it describes the natural world - it is also demanding its lost prerogatives be returned (that is, the right of veto power over the laws that are passed, the conclusions that science can reach, and the way day-to-day life is carried out).

Another factor that should not be ignored is the deep-seated anti-intellectual bias of the conservative church in America. Because honestly dealing with the products of science and modern scholarship changes our beliefs about the Bible and the world around us, education is seen as having a negative impact on faith.

Partly, this is because most anyone can read the Bible and take its worlds at an approximation of face value. But once you have studied the Bible in its historical context, listened to the voice of modern textual criticism, and factored in data about the natural world from science, you see the Bible in a new light. For folks who have not gone through that education process, it looks like education strips people of faith, and it is not clear why. Their working assumption is that education is controlled by an anti-god cabal. It is obvious to them that too much education is a bad thing.

Now intellectuals have come along with PhDs and law degrees and engineering degrees, and they say that science and educated opinion actually supports the naive or literal reading of the Bible. This approach is tremendously popular among conservatives, and a great relief. Since the average person did not follow the scientific arguments against a literal view of the Genesis, when some intellectuals defend literalism, this is enough to assure them that conservatism was right all along.

Given this, I do not expect that either a literal view of the Bible, or the popularity of intellectual defenses of that approach to faith will go away anytime soon. Smart conservatives, wanting to defend their literal reading of the Bible, will continue to evolve new responses to anything science can come up with.

What I think the future holds for religion is that there will be an acceleration of the trend to attribute fewer and fewer things to the supernatural. As science understands more about how the natural world works, there will be fewer and fewer places where we know little enough of the process to suggest that God may have done the hard parts. As the picture of God intervening to bridge the limitations of natural causes gives way to plausible mechanisms for natural evolution, God will become, among the educated faithful, the Designer who made the whole thing work.

This is already happened - but it left behind a large number of people who are ignorant of the scientific discoveries of the past few hundred years - and their implications for the natural world, the Bible, and our understanding of God. We face the displeasure of those "left behind," who are unwilling to let go of a supernatural view of the world. This is not only a conservative Christian movement. There are fundamentalists of almost all religions, and even adherents of various "new age" religions who believe that the supernatural (whatever that means to them) is the true motive force behind the world we live in. These groups represent the "rear guard" in a withdrawal from understanding the world in terms of supernatural causation. It will be generations before this group becomes a true minority, and even then only if we are more successful than we have been in educating people about science.

Science literacy then is not just an economic advantage - it becomes a critical public policy tactic in an attempt to prevent a cultural divide over how people understand the world to work. How people view the world impacts how they make decisions, how they face the future, how they interpret current events, and what items are at the top of their agenda for their leaders and elected officials. Pretty important stuff.

IS ID Creationism?

So this is the rough idea - because Young Earth Creationism (YEC) buys what they call mirco evolution, there is some overlap with evolution. I guess Old Earth Creationism (OEC) gets a bit more overlap, since it buys an old earth, and ID gets even more, since it buys the mechanisms, and even the general idea of evolution. But all brands of creationism ignore the discoveries of science in favor of their interpretation of the Bible.

Here are a couple of quotes I pulled off of the Wikipedia article on ID

Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

Johnson: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won

I think the answer is yes - ID is an approach to creationism that does not talk about God, evidently in the hopes that it could then be taught in schools.

Of course, some will object that evolution only knows about natural processes - in which case there could be no overlap at all with creationism. So for the sake of the clarity, evolution is only about natural causes, and the overlap is the parts of evolution even creationists grant - no implication that evolution recognizes supernatural causes.

Why does it matter? Because creationism starts from the view that how they read the Bible takes precedence over what we learn about the natural world via science. I am not talking about issues like the existence of God or the meaning of life - those are beyond science, and science cannot prove anything about these subjects one way or the other. Science has made a convincing case for an old earth, common descent, and natural processes at work in the world, resulting in what we see around us.

This poses some challenges for people of faith - but the right response is to face those challenges, not to pretend that science does not exist, or that by claiming something is true, that makes it so.

Does Creationism Honor God?

Creationists are essentially insisting on pretending ignorance about anything that touches a literal interpretation of Genesis. This ignorance allows them to say, "Science has not figured it out - so I could be right - God could have just gone 'poof.'"

The dominant scientific theory is that life emerged spontaneously, and folks are trying to work out how it might have happened. We know more about how that could have happened now than we did 50 years ago, and in 50 more we’ll know even more. We do know enough now that we can say that God did not poof everything into existence 6,000 years ago.

Now we could just say, "Genesis says God did it, so we'll accept this and go work on something else." But creationists say that they don't advocate censorship of science - so it must be OK for scientists to explore how life could have spontaneously developed. Really, you can't have it both ways - either the Bible said it and that settles it (so stop doing research), or scientists can pursue the idea that there is a natural explanation for the origin of life.

The starting point of methodological naturalism, which underlies the scientific method is that there are natural explanations for all observed phenomenon. One of the things that concerns me about the various ID/Creationist positions is that their basic assumption is that a particular interpretation of revelation trumps observation.

Of course, there are a variety of creationist positions, and they differ based on how they interpret the Bible. If they believe that Genesis 1:1 covers a long period of time, then you’ve got old earth creationists. If Genesis 1 refers to 7 24-hour days some 6,000 year ago, you’ve got young earth creationists, and so on. The point is that what is driving the debate is not science (or even an objectivley literal reading of the Bible), but differing interpretations of certain revelations found in the Bible. For the moment, various creationist camps have all joined together to fight science, but logic will tell you that they can’t all be right. Will Wells Unification Church theology win, or will it be Johnson’s old-earth creationism, or Gish’s young-earth approach? Or will ID win out, and with it a syncretistic approach to creation, where anyone’s God can step up and take the credit for creation?

Except for one small fact - just as the storehouses for hail or snow referenced in Job 38:22 are not accurate meteorology, Genesis 1 is not a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the earth and life. No science that is constrained by a single sect’s theology can be successful in explaining how the world works. By insisting on injecting private opinion (in the guise of one group's reading of Genesis) into science, what will emerge is bad science – and bad science is ineffective science, wrong science – science that does not work. Fewer discoveries, fewer medical advances, the inability to compete technologically with cultures that do not shackle their scientists – and an inaccurate view of the world that God has made. That is just plain wrong – and does not honor God in any way, shape or form.

Ways Forward in the Faith / Science Dialogue

Are faith and science at an impasse, with faith insisting that it’s view of revelation is the final arbiter of reality, while science refuses to discuss anything that can’t be weighed, measured or tested?

Both faith and science have important contributions to make to our ordinary life. Science makes sense of the natural world, explaining how things work and what the world is made of. This information is used to enhance life, make the world more manageable and extend the reach of our senses. Like any tool, it can also be used to control, and its use can have unexpected consequences.

Faith makes sense of our life experience in the world, explaining why we are here, and our relationship to the world and the people in it. This worldview enhances our life by helping us make sense of our context, our purpose and our future. Like any prescription, it can be divisive and controlling.

Science is an aide to faith because it helps us filter fact from fiction, and provides a means of testing claims that faith makes, especially when it comes to claims about the nature and origin of the world. It also rescues us from a world of caprice and superstition.

Faith can be a useful context for science, suggesting connections and directions for the world and our place in it that are not deducible from strictly material observations.

Faith that is divorced from the real world and how it works slides into superstition and ignorance. Science with no ethical content can become empty materialism. Faith is not the only context for ethics, but it is the source for millions of people.

Creationism Has Become Hate-Speech Disguised as Religion

Follow the tone of the creationist debate, and you realize that it is taking an increasing nasty and divisive direction. James Kennedy, the influential Christian broadcaster, promotes a DVD series entitled “Evolution, the Heart of the Problem.” This is an odd conceit for a minister who surely must believe that sin is the heart of the problem – but the hyperbole makes my point – a natural explanation for human differences and behavior is at the heart of his problem – a direct challenge to the primacy of conservative Christian theology over every aspect of life (political, religious, economic, cultural or scientific).

The book “I don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” asserts that scientists promote evolution, even through they know it is wrong, in order to gain sex, money and power. Of course, it is absurd on the face of it to think that evolution is a vast conspiracy, or that all scientists participate in some grand façade (let alone that scientists are rewarded for their participation in this scheme with sex, money or power). Still, this concept is put forward as a serious answer to the question, “If evolutionary theory is so flawed, why is it still in universal usage?” It is hard to see how any rational person could take this seriously – and yet, many conservative Christians accept this reasoning without question, apparently because it is just what they want to hear.

Scientists are regularly portrayed as part of an anti-God conspiracy, and the teaching of evolution, one of the best documented theories in science, is viewed as a deliberate broadside against the Christian faith.

Why has it become fashionable to deride and denounce science and scientists, and in fact the whole notion of a secular society? I see three main reasons.

First, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the selectively literal approach to Genesis favored by many Christian conservatives. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent and a very old universe, their assertions of special creation, a 6,000 year-old earth and a global flood are simply not plausible. Rather than face this fact, these conservatives have taken the offensive, and are attempting to discredit science. Their hope is that in the ensuing ignorance, they can step in and insist we adopt their viewpoint as the only allowable alternative.

Second, increasing secularism is eroding the authority of conservative churches, and resulting in a society that does not mirror the ideal order they envision from their reading of the Bible. Again, science is an obstacle in their path to a Christian society, because it offers explanations for human behavior and alternative social policies not grounded in their particular view of God. By working to eliminate the competition, the hope is that a theocratic state will emerge, in which conservative Christian values are imposed via legislation and self-censorship. We already see these trends in the attempts at inserting Christian dogma into public school science education, the movement for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the ardent desire to outlaw abortion.

Third, this movement underscores conservative Christians’ status as a persecuted minority. These persecuted believers have been given secret knowledge (via their reading of the bible) unavailable to science or reason. They view the broader culture as the playground of the devil, who has ensnared and blinded non-believers (that is, anyone who does not believe like they do). In this scenario, science is the handmaiden of the devil, weakening Christians’ faith in their interpretation of the bible, and providing “intellectual fulfillment” for atheists. Science-as-the-work-of-the-devil validates their self-image as a select group of persecuted saints who alone know the truth, and who will soon be rescued by the hand of God (who will at the same time destroy the earth, along with all unbelievers).

In this view, science is simply a causality in a war to establish a particular, sectarian vision of reality. Because science does not validate that reality, it must be consigned to the same fiery lake as everything that does not serve God. The Kennedy’s and Dobson’s of the world may use this kind of imagery as rhetorical devices to stir up their support base – but a generation raised on this hate speech and empowered by inflows of cash and political will from the far right may well form a modern tribe of Vandals, who take this "trash-secular-culture" rhetoric as literally as their reading of Genesis.

A Celebration of Ignorance

Creationists want "their side" inserted into science textbooks. However, they have no real interest in teaching school children about actual controversies in science. How do I know? Just look at the subjects they focus on: origins of life, and common descent (evolution). They are totally uninterested in any other area (they'll get to cosmology eventually), because their real goal is to make the classroom safe for their narrow interpretation of Genesis.

The science textbooks take the approach that, after hundreds of years of scientific progress in understanding the natural world in terms of physical processes, there is in every likelihood a natural chain of events leading from non-life to life (even if we never figure it out). After all, the reasoning might go, here we are. Trying to stay clear of a confrontation with a multitude of religious claims, the textbooks do not attempt an analysis of natural versus super-natural causation. What they do teach is the consensus view of our understanding of the natural world (albeit always a few years out-of-date).

The creationists here are coming from a different viewpoint - they already know God "poofed" everything into existence 6,000 years ago, and so reject any claim that a natural chain of events led to life, because they "know" that is not how it was done.

Just as with ID, even if we can't figure out HOW it could have happened, this does not mean that God did it via a supernatural event- it just means that we have not figured it out. So we are back to the classic God-in-the-gaps explanation. YEC-ers argue for gaps in our understanding where they can say, "see, God did it." Inevitably, the gaps reconfigure, and the YEC-ers are forced to say "What I meant was, God did that."

Compare this with geocentrism in Martin Luther's time. The gap was different, but the approach is the same.

Quote:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." - Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

Martin Luther based his geocentrism on the Bible (just like YECs), he denied the evidence in deference to his interpretation of Scripture (just like YECs), and he was demonstrably wrong (just like the YECs).

The YEC position results in:

• a celebration ignorance (God acts only where we don't know what happened - as soon as it is explained "scientifically" God disappears from view),
• discouraging real science (any attempt to demonstrate the "hows" of a gap are seen as part of an anti-God agenda), and
• distorting our educational system (instead of learning about the world, the classroom is given over to partisan wrangling about the validity of the Genesis account of creation).

So not only do I think the YEC approach is flawed as both an approach to biblical interpretation AND as science; it also shrinks God to fit into a set of ever-diminishing, tawdry gaps.

Dinosaurs and Humans? Oh No!

The belief that dinosaurs and humans could have lived at the same time is an idea that has been kept alive past its time. The evidence for human and dinosaur co-existence seems to be:

1. Biblical references to behemoth and leviathan, assumed to be actual creatures and dinosaurs,
2. Literary references to dragons (said dragons assumed to be dinosaurs),
3. Cave paintings believed to depict dinosaurs contemporary with the humans who drew them, and
4. Human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock.

Arguing against humans and dinosaur’s having co-existed:

1. The plants and animals found with dinosaurs are not the same plants and animals found with humans (not even close). No modern plants or animals have been found with dinosaurs, for example, and no plants or animals found with dinosaurs have been found with human remains.
2. Dinosaurs and humans are not found in the same strata. For example, in Kansas, dinosaurs can be found in the remains of a shallow sea, while people are found in the remains of a vast plain. Note that the biblical references to behemoth and leviathan refer to these creatures as being alive in the author’s lifetime, so they all could not have died off pre-flood.
3. Unlike other extinct creatures that humans interacted with (the mammoth, for instance), there are no artifacts demonstrating interaction. We have found mammoth bones scored by spears, charred bones of mammoths in trash heaps, carved mammoth tusks, etc. There have been no such finds involving dinosaurs.
4. Ancients ran across dinosaur fossils as well, and tales of large creatures could easily have come from these bones – just as our dinosaur stories in our popular culture have. Furher, dragons don't actually look or act much like dinosaurs (except that they are both large).
5. The Bible's references to dinosaurs? There isn't any. The Bible refers to creatures known to the readers - and we have no evidence that dinosaurs lived with people (remember the evidence for human-mammoth interaction - and this is in pre-literate, pre-historic cultures; by the times of the Bible, we are dealing with literate cultures where we would have every reason to expect dinosaurs to show up, just like bears, lions, locusts and a host of other clearly identifiable animals do, in paintings, in literature, in "scientific" treatises, etc.).
   
6. The claims of human footprints found in the same rock with dinosaurs have turned out to be made in error. Even a quick Google of the subject puts the claims to rest (sure, some people still support the idea, but there is no substantive evidence - none at all).
   

Notice how these points have nothing to do with the age of the earth or evolution. Of course, when you place humans and dinosaurs in their proper timeframes (tens of millions of years apart) it is obvious that they never co-existed. When you compare the kind of plants that existed during the reign of the dinosaurs with the vegetation human's evolved around, it is clear that a large span of time separates us from dinosaurs. Even setting these arguments aside, however, there is simply no basis on which to conclude that humans and dinosaurs ever met face-to-face.

There is a big difference between explaining how something could be true, and actually looking at the evidence we have, and concluding it actually IS true. You can believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time only if you look at a small sub-section of the evidence, and present that sub-section in the best possible light. Look at all the evidence, and subject that evidence to critical thinking, and you realize that people and dinosaurs never met.