Unit 7: Science

1
Unit 7 Science Religion

• Brent Royuk
• Sci-202Concordia University

2
Science and Truth(from Unit 1)

• Does science find truth?
• Are facts true?
• Are laws true?
• Are theories true?

3
Science and Truth

• Even though theoretical knowledge is provisional,
  it can still be certain, or at least pretty darn
  certain.
• Does the earth really go around the sun?
• Do atoms really exist?
• Is genetic information really encoded in DNA?
• Does continental drift really occur?
• Is the earth really 4.5 billion years old?
• Are humans and chimpanzees really descended from
  common ancestors?
• Is space really 10 or 11-dimensional, with 6 or 7
  of the dimensions compactified?
• These answers are all of the provisional,
  probabilistic, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately
  variety.

4
God and Truth

• How do we determine truth in religion?
• Scripture ? Revelation
• Why do we ultimately trust the Bible as the
  revealed Word of God?
• Faith
• How do revealed truths compare to scientific
  truths?
• Truth vs. truth

5
God and Truth

• Does God really exist?
• Did God really create the universe?
• Was Jesus really born to a virgin mother?
• Are we really born sinful?
• Did Jesus really save us by dying on a cross?
• Are we really going to live forever in heaven
  after we die?

6
truth vs. Truth

• Empirical vs. Revelatory
• Provisional vs. Absolute
• Tentative vs. Eternal
• Skepticism vs. Faith

7
truth vs. Truth

• So how do the two truths relate to each other?
• Truth is more important than truth, right?
• Can Truth inform truth?
• Does Truth trump truth?
• Can truth change Truth?

8
SR Models

• Lets make a catalog of approaches
• We should try to
• Be fairly comprehensive.
• Include perspectives that people actually have.

9
SR Models

• Ian Barbour, Religion and Science, 1997.
• Four Ways of Relating
• Conflict ? ?
• Independence ? ?
• Dialogue ??
• Integration ??
• (Arrow symbols idea from Daniel Johnson)

10
SR Models

• Massimo Pigliucci

11
SR Models

• Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.
• Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the
  Christian Faith
• Natural Theology
• Science Demands Christian Theology
• Compartmentalism
• Science and Christian Theology are Unrelated
• Bible-Only
• Christian Theology in Spite of Science
• Science-Only
• Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology
• Scientific Theology
• Science Redefines Christian Theology
• Complementarity
• New Synthesis

12
SR Models

• Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.
• Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the
  Christian Faith
• Natural Theology
• Science Demands Christian Theology
• Compartmentalism
• Science and Christian Theology are Unrelated
• Bible-Only
• Christian Theology in Spite of Science
• Science-Only
• Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology
• Scientific Theology
• Science Redefines Christian Theology
• Complementarity
• New Synthesis

13
SR Models
14
SR Models

• Lets look more closely at the five main boxes
• Naturalism
• Theistic Science
• Open Science (Qualified Agreement)
• Compartmentalism (Independence)
• Complementarity

15
Naturalism

• The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever
  will be --Carl Sagan, Cosmos.
• The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
• cf William Paleys Watchmaker Hypothesis
• we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
  materialism. It is not that the methods and
  institutions of science somehow compel us to
  accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
  world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced
  by our a priori adherence to material causes to
  create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
  concepts that produce material explanations, no
  matter how counterintuitive, no matter how
  mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
  materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
  Divine Foot in the door. --Richard Lewontin
• Even if all the data point to an intelligent
  designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from
  science because it is not naturalistic. --Scott
  C. Todd
• Any thoughts?

16
Theistic Science

• In its broadest sense, theistic science is rooted
  in the idea that Christians ought to consult all
  they know or have reason to believe when forming
  and testing hypotheses, when explaining things in
  science, and when evaluating the plausibility of
  various scientific hypotheses. --J. P. Moreland
• It is my contention that recognizing the Bible as
  a reliable source of information for the conduct
  of science is essential for an effective use of
  resources and for correct results. --Larry
  Vardiman, ICR

17
Theistic Science

• No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can
  be allowed to take precedence over the clear
  statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.
  --Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology
• A number of Christian scholars reject theistic
  science and advocate what is sometimes called
  methodological naturalism, which is basically the
  idea that theological concepts like God or direct
  acts of God are not properly part of natural
  science. Thus, theistic science is fundamentally
  misguided because it has a faulty philosophy of
  science and an improper view of how science and
  theology should be integrated. --J.P. Moreland
• Comments?

18
Open Science

• Open and Closed What is the difference? The
  most common type of non-open science is "closed"
  by methodological naturalism (MN), a proposal to
  restrict the freedom of scientists by requiring
  that they include only natural causes in their
  theories. The difference between science that is
  open and closed is the difference in responding
  to a question Has the history of the universe
  included both natural and non-natural causes? In
  an open science (liberated from MN) this question
  can be evaluated based on scientific evidence a
  scientist begins with MN, but is flexible and is
  willing to be persuaded by evidence and logic.
  In a closed science (restricted by MN), evidence
  and logic are not the determining factors because
  the inevitable conclusion no matter what is
  being studied, or what is the evidence must be
  that "it happened by natural process. --Craig
  Rusbult
• Comments?

19
Compartmentalism/Independence

• The Two Realms View Propositions, theories or
  methodologies in theology and another discipline
  may involve two distinct, nonoverlapping areas of
  investigation. For example, debates about angels
  or the extent of the atonement have little to do
  with organic chemistry. Similarly, it is of
  little interest to theology whether a methane
  molecule contains three or four hydrogen atoms.
  --J.P. Moreland
• Stephen Jay Gould and the NOMA Principle
  (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria)
• Each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or
  domain of teaching authority and these
  magisteria do not overlap The net of science
  covers the empirical universe what it is made of
  (fact) and why does it work this way (theory).
  The net of religion extends over questions of
  moral meaning and value.
• Hoimar von Ditfurth writes To this day science
  is by definition the attempt to see how far man
  and nature can be explained without recourse to
  miracles. This is not a statement of
  materialist philosophy. This is an explanation
  of the rules of the game. The rules are well
  understood. The game has been a highly
  successful one in the past and continues
  successful today. Playing the game according to
  the rules does not make one an atheist. --Jean
  Pond

20
Compartmentalism/Independence

• For the origin of the universe the current
  consensus in cosmology and physics is that the
  big bang theory accounts best for the
  observational data we now have and is supported
  by excellent and straightforward evidence,
  including the (approximately) 2.7 degree Kelvin
  cosmic background radiation. The age of the
  universe, although still under discussion, seems
  to be within the ten to twenty billion year
  range. Such an ancient universe is rejected by
  young-earth creationists on biblical grounds. On
  the other hand, old-earth creationists and
  others, as discussed earlier, feel that it is
  supported biblically and, in fact, that the big
  bang is evidence for the existence of God.For
  the adherent to NOMA, of course, the Bible
  neither supports nor refutes the big bang, or
  vice-versa. We are happy to accept the
  cosmological knowledge that the big bang offers,
  but we recognize that (as a scientific theory) it
  is subject to revision. We may find, personally,
  that the big bang fits well (or does not fit
  well) with our overall worldview, including our
  idea of what is aesthetically pleasing in nature.
  If we are Christians, we do not worry about it
  too much one way or the other. --Jean Pond

21
Compartmentalism/Independence

• I find her Jean Ponds view of scripture and
  science (along with NOMA) to be an elaborate
  cop-out that gives total precedence to science at
  every point in the discussion carrying any
  significance for discovering physical reality.
  Pond (and NOMA) seem to overlook the turbulent
  nature of scientific theories throughout history
  while discounting the possibility that the Bible
  has a divine author capable of giving a general
  but accurate description of physical reality that
  science is yet to fully discover. --Roy Massie
• Independence is a way of resolving the conflict
  by affirming separate spheres of validity for
  science and religion, with a demilitarized if
  fuzzy boundary Neo-orthodox religion is
  comfortable with this resolution, and most
  working scientists are also quite happy with this
  pragmatic approach. Lutherans may feel at home
  here, seeing this as a version of Luther's "two
  kingdoms," and there is the air of Copenhagen and
  Bohr's complementarity about it. --Daniel
  Johnson
• Strengths and Weaknesses?

22
Complementarity

• Science and faith have different methodologies,
  but they are complementary, not contradictory a
  faith without reason is as stultifying as a
  reason without faith. --R. J. Berry
• If to the request Describe an apple for me,
  from one who has never seen an apple, I reply
  An apple is usually red like a cherry, juicy like
  a peach, and firm like a pear, I have used three
  similes. Each gives a partial insight into the
  reality of an apple but no one separately, or
  even all three together, gives a totally accurate
  description of an apple. By knowing all three
  similes I know more about an apple than by
  knowing only one or two of them. If to these
  similes I add, An apple is like a Japanese
  persimmon except that its inside is white rather
  than pink, I would know still more about an
  apple, while still not knowing exactly what an
  apple is. Such similar descriptions could be
  multiplied many times over, giving a greater and
  greater awareness of what an apple is, but never
  converging on a totally accurate statement of
  what an apple is. Descriptions that give partial
  insights (with limited accuracy, exactness, or
  correspondence with reality) may be said to be
  complementary. --Richard Bube

23
Complementarity

• Paul Dirac invented something called quantum
  field theory which is fundamental to our
  understanding of the physical world. I can't
  believe Dirac's ability to invent that theory, or
  Einstein's ability to invent the general theory
  of relativity, is a sort of spin-off from our
  ancestors having to dodge sabre-toothed tigers.
  It seems to me that something much more profound,
  much more mysterious is going on. I would like to
  understand why the reason within and the reason
  without fit together at a deep level. Religious
  belief provides me with a entirely rational and
  entirely satisfying explanation of that fact. It
  says that the reason within and the reason
  without have a common origin in this deeper
  rationality which is the reason of the Creator,
  whose will is the ground both of my mental and my
  physical experience. That's for me an
  illustration of theology's power to answer a
  question, namely the intelligibility of the
  world, that arises from science but goes beyond
  science's unaided power to answer. Remember,
  science simply assumes the intelligibility of the
  world. Theology can take that striking fact and
  make it profoundly comprehensible. --John
  Polkinghorne

24
Complementarity

• They SR ask different questions in the one
  case, how things happen, by what process? in the
  other, why things happen, to what purpose? Though
  these are two different questions, yet, the ways
  we answer them must bear some consonant
  relationship to each other. If I assure you that
  my purpose is to create a beautiful garden and
  then I tell you that how I am going to do so is
  by covering the ground with six inches of green
  concrete, you will rightly doubt the genuineness
  of my intentions. The fact that we now know that
  the universe did not spring into being ready made
  a few thousand years ago but that it has evolved
  over a period of fifteen billion years from its
  fiery origin in the Big Bang, does not abolish
  Christian talk of the world as God's creation,
  but it certainly modifies certain aspects of that
  discourse. --John Polkinghorne
• Any thoughts?

25
Creation vs. EvolutionA Historical Introduction

• God of the Gaps
• If science has a gap in its knowledge, one can
  explain the mystery with God.
• And even use the gap as evidence of God.
• So God occupies gaps in scientific knowledge.
• Problem As the gaps shrink, so does God.

26
Surveying Creationism

• There is a sense in which every Christian is a
  "creationist,"for every Christian believes that
  he or she lives in a universe that is a
  creation,and that the Source of creation is the
  God who is revealed in the Bible as "maker of
  heaven and earth. This is true, whether the
  Christian is a young-earth creationist,an old
  earth creationist,an intelligent design
  creationist,or an evolutionary creationist. While
  these various creationists may strongly disagree
  among themselves about the "how" of creation,and
  subscribe to different portraits of creation,they
  do agree on certain essential beliefs or
  doctrines about creation,and these beliefs are
  anchored in the revelations of Holy Scripture.
  --Dr. Robert Schneider, ASA LISTSERV, Jan 12,
  2003.

27
Varieties of Creationism A List

• Young Earth Creationism (YEC)
• Scientific Creationism The ICR and the CRS
• Creationist Evangelism AIG
• The Omphalos Hypothesis (uncommon)
• Old Earth Creationism (OEC)
• Day-Age (uncommon)
• Gap or Ruin Restoration (uncommon)
• Progressive Creationism (Hugh Ross)
• Intelligent Design
• Evolutionary Creationism
• Theistic Evolution

28
Surveying Creationism

• Creationist Interpretations of Genesis
• Reproduced from Ronald L. Numbers, The
  Creationists

29
The Omphalos Hypothesis

• OMPHALOS An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot
  by Phillip Henry Gosse, 1857
• Omphalos means navel
• Appearance of age navels, tree rings, starlight
• Publication met with derision and indifference,
  faded from history
• Chief argument against God does not lie
• Invincible and untestable
• Anecdotally, Id say this is a strong
  folk-creationist variant in the LCMS

30
Progressive Creationism

• Sometimes people refer to this perspective as
  Rossism after Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe
• Characteristics
• Accepts much of modern physical science,
  including Big Bang 16 billion years ago
• Evidentialist approach science confirms the
  Bible
• Rejects evolutionary biology, saying God created
  the kinds of animals sequentially, producing the
  fossil record
• God created hominid creatures several million
  years before Adam Eve, in agreement with
  conventional paleontology

31
Young Earth Creationism

• Recent (special, fiat) creation, 6000-10000 years
  ago
• Creation occurred during six 24-hour days
• Life was created each after their kind, which
  rules out evolutionary species creation
  (macroevolution)
• Most YECers accept microevolutionary changes at
  or below the species level (which can be
  observed)
• Noahs flood was worldwide, destroying all life
  except what was on the ark, causing catastrophic
  geological changes and creating the fossil record
• Argues for catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism
• Great decrease in life expectancy after the flood
  could have been a result of inbreeding or loss a
  vapor canopy (the canopy theory) that made the
  atmosphere into a big hyperbaric oxygen chamber
  and blocked harmful UV radiation.
• There are many varieties of YEC, especially since
  Biblical interpretation is involved as well as
  science.
• 1997 Gallup poll 5 of US scientists are YECs
• Is it scientific creationism?

32
YEC Example

• THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY
• DANNY R. FAULKNER, ICR, 1998
• Among creationists there is much disagreement
  about the age of the earth and the age of the
  universe. Most opinions can be classified into
  one of three groups. One group is the belief that
  both the earth and the universe were created
  during the literal six-day creation week a few
  thousand years ago. That is the position of the
  Institute for Creation Research and most members
  of the Creation Research Society (CRS). A second
  opinion is that while the earth and all that is
  on it were created a few thousand years ago, most
  of the universe was created in the distant past
  of "in the beginning" of Genesis 11. A careful
  reading of the statement of belief of the CRS
  reveals that this belief is compatible with that
  statement. The third possibility is that both the
  earth and the universe are quite old, in general
  agreement with what most of modern science claims
  to be the ages. That position is difficult to
  reconcile with the CRS statement. The many
  writings of Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb
  have addressed this issue and have argued that
  the first opinion is the correct one. This author
  is in agreement with that position, and for the
  purposes of this paper, that is the definition of
  the creation model.
• The creation was only the first of three major
  events that have affected the world. The second
  event was the fall recorded in Genesis chapter 3.
  The fall had very strong spiritual implications
  (the introduction of sin, the need for
  salvation), but was also accompanied by physical
  consequences, such as death, the cursing of the
  ground, and the groaning of the whole world as
  recorded in Romans 822. There is some debate
  among creationists as to what the full effects of
  this fall upon the world were. For instance, many
  suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may
  not have been operating in its fullness before
  the fall 57. The third major event was the
  world wide flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8.
  Being one year in duration, the catastrophic
  flood must have had a profound effect not only
  upon life, but the shape of the earth's surface
  itself. There is also some discussion among
  creationists about how much affect that the flood
  had upon the rest of the universe.
• What modern science has to say about the origin
  and history of the world has caused many to
  dismiss these three events. On the other hand
  creation scientists take the Biblical account
  seriously, and so accept these events as real and
  have attempted to reexamine the world for
  evidence for those events.

33
Criticisms of YEC

• Christian Opponents
• Christians who object to YEC reject its
  metaphysical assumptions (as well see with ID),
  but they also criticize its science.
• DWISE1 has a website where he argues that
• creationists do teach that their faith would be
  falsified if evolution and other scientific
  findings are true,
• that many Christians have lost or nearly lost
  their faith because of creation science, and
• that many people are driven away from
  Christianity because of creation science.
• Since then, I have corresponded with several
  Christians who have traveled the same path as I
  have. One thing that is always agreed upon is the
  damage young-earth creationism can do to souls
  how many believers they have seen fall away. We
  have been taught that the Bible demands a young
  earth interpretation and when the facts of nature
  become inescapable - our faith becomes shattered!
  My pastor was wrong, the opposite was the case.
  If "R" had been offered the truth from the
  beginning, he would never have experienced the
  turmoil he went through. When "R" could no longer
  deny that the universe was billions of years old,
  the only option left for him was to deny the
  Bible. How many others have been disheartened in
  like manner? --Ed, from his site Creation,
  Evolution and Adam, Genesis, the Flood

34
Intelligent Design

• Tends to have an open philosophy of science but
  not a theistic view Neo-Creationist
• What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent
  Design begins with the observation that
  intelligent causes can do things which undirected
  natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes
  can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot
  arrange the pieces as meaningful words or
  sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement
  requires an intelligent cause Its fundamental
  claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to
  explain the complex, information-rich structures
  of biology, and that these causes are empirically
  detectable Intelligent Design presupposes
  neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent
  Design is theologically minimalist It is the
  empirical detectability of intelligent causes
  that renders Intelligent Design a fully
  scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the
  design arguments of philosophers, or what has
  traditionally been called "natural theology"
  Intelligent Design entails that naturalism in all
  forms be rejected. Metaphysical naturalism, the
  view that undirected natural causes wholly govern
  the world, is to be rejected because it is false.
  Methodological naturalism, the view that for the
  sake of science, scientific explanation ought
  never exceed undirected natural causes, is to be
  rejected because it stifles inquiry. --William
  Dembski

35
Intelligent Design

• Four Arguments from ID
• Irreducible Complexity
• Michael Behe, the mousetrap example
• Complex Specified Information
• William Dembski, the alphabet example
• The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
• The universe has characteristics that allow life
  to exist, including the value of many physical
  constants, the strength of nuclear forces, etc.
  If any of these values were different by a small
  amount, life would be impossible. Taken
  together, these circumstances are highly
  improbable and suggest the existence of a
  designer.
• Evolutionists argue by assumption
• If God is excluded from any possible
  manifestation with the physical world, of course
  youll end up with something that looks like
  Darwinism. This elevates the theory to more of a
  belief system, that has found its way into all
  the sciences, often inappropriately.

36
Intelligent Design

• Phillip Johnson Excerpt from Reason in the
  Balance The Case Against Naturalism in Science,
  Law Education
• Naturalism in the Academy
• The domination of naturalism over intellectual
  life is not affected by the fact that some
  religious believers and active churchgoers hold
  prestigious academic appointments. With very few
  exceptions, these believers maintain their
  respectability by tacitly accepting the
  naturalistic rules that define rationality in the
  universities. They explicitly or implicitly
  concede that their theism is a matter of "faith"
  and agree to leave the realm of "reason" to the
  agnostics. This is true in every field of study,
  but especially so in natural science, the
  discipline that has the authority to describe
  physical reality for all the others. A biologist
  may believe in God on Sundays, but he or she had
  better not bring that belief to the laboratory on
  Monday with the idea that it has any bearing on
  the nature or origin of living organisms. For
  professional purposes, atheistic and theistic
  biologists alike must assume that nature is all
  there is.
• Natural science is thus based on naturalism. What
  a science based on naturalism tells us, not
  surprisingly, is that naturalism is true. Because
  of the authority of science, the assumption that
  naturalism is true dominates all the disciplines
  of the university.

37
Criticisms of ID

• The Chicken or Egg Question
• Do the scientific ideas of IDers flow from their
  Christian faith, or are they truly empirical?
• It is possible that some un-religious scientist
  might become convinced, on scientific evidence,
  of the existence of Intelligent Design, while
  remaining perfectly open minded about any of the
  truths of religion. When that scientist shows
  up, I shall begin to take Intelligent Design
  seriously. --John Derbyshire

38
Criticisms of ID

• Some Christians oppose ID on the grounds of MN.
• Intelligent Design supposes that supernatural
  forces have crafted the world as we see it.
  Supernatural forces are simply not within the
  scope of science. Science necessarily only
  concerns itself with natural phenomena and
  natural causes. Supernatural causes are not
  testable, quantifiable, or qualifiable. They are
  simply not the scope of science. ID is
  unscience. Those proponents of ID are not simply
  insisting on better science. They are insisting
  on being antithetical to science and sitting down
  at the science table. Science cannot and should
  not concern itself with causes that it cannot
  empirically demonstrate or test. It should make
  no assertion that cannot be shown to be false by
  another scientist using the scientific method.
  --anonymous email blog post

39
Criticisms of ID

• Objections are also raised that ID is just a
  modern version of the God of the Gaps argument.
• ID theory posits that certain features of the
  natural world CAN ONLY be explained by the active
  intervention of a designing intelligence. Since
  the entire history of science displays
  innumerable instances of hitherto inexplicable
  phenomena yielding to natural explanations (and,
  in fact, innumerable instances of "intelligent
  design" notions to explain natural phenomena
  being scrapped when more obvious natural
  explanations were worked out), the whole ID
  outlook has very little appeal to well-informed
  scientists. A scientist who knows his history
  sees the region of understanding as a gradually
  enlarging circle of light in a general darkness.
  If someone comes along and tells him "This
  particular region of darkness HERE will never be
  illuminated by methods like yours," then he is
  naturally skeptical. "How can you possibly know
  that?" he will say, very reasonably. --John
  Derbyshire

40
Criticisms of ID

• Another objection is that if ID is correct,
  humans can be led to a belief in the existence of
  God through empirical means, which, in the
  opinion of some, is contrary to scripture.
• If Luther is right, if the cross is where we
  really see what God is like, then we should
  expect that Gods actions in the world bear the
  mark of the cross Just as the Son of God limited
  himself by taking human form and dying on a
  cross, God limits divine action in the world to
  be in accord with rational laws which God has
  chosen A theology of the cross then suggests
  that, contrary to the belief of ID advocates,
  methodological naturalism is appropriate for
  natural science, which is not to invoke God as an
  explanation for phenomena But this God does not
  compel the belief of skeptics by leaving puzzles
  in creation which science cant solve. The mark
  God has placed on creation is both more stark and
  more subtle. An evil and adulterous generation
  asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it
  except the sign of Jonah (Matthew 164 NRSV).
  --George Murphy

41
ID in Schools

• The creation/evolution in schools syllogism If
  creationism is religion it should not be taught
  in public schools.
• If you buy the syllogism, theistic creationism is
  out.
• U.S. Supreme Court, 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard
• ...Because the primary purpose of the
  Creationism Act is to advance a particular
  religious belief, the Act endorses religion in
  violation of the First Amendment.
• The question then becomes Is ID religious?
• U.S. District Court, 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover
  Area School District
• "We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not
  science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple
  itself from its creationist, and thus religious
  antecedents."

42
Evolutionary CreationismorTheistic Evolution

• Is there a difference?
• Theistic evolution implies more of a deistic
  approach, while Evolutionary Creationism implies
  more of an active role for God in the world.
  Proponents of these points of view often wrestle
  with terminology.
• E.g., Howard Van Till refers to his position as
  the fully gifted creation perspective.
• a vision that recognizes the entire universe as
  a creation that has, by Gods unbounded
  generosity and unfathomable creativity, been
  given all of the capabilities for
  self-organization and transformation necessary to
  make possible something as humanly
  incomprehensible as unbroken evolutionary
  development. --Howard Van Till

43
Evolutionary CreationismorTheistic Evolution

• From theisticevolution.org
• Why have some of you not heard this before now?
• Not exactly preaching material.
• Too controversial to be printed in Sunday School
  material.
• Christian professors who would be most qualified
  to write and/or teach on the subject are in fear
  of their jobs
• Many Christian colleges and seminaries rely on
  private donations for funding. Thus, they prefer
  that their professors not teach anything that
  might lead to donor disenchantment.
• Fundamentalists accuse the viewpoint of being
  liberal theology--thus, making this an unpopular
  view

44
Evolutionary CreationismorTheistic Evolution

• Christian Opponents
• Creationists disagree for obvious reasons
• Too deistic
• God is portrayed as being more active in the
  Bible
• He makes grass grow for the cattle Ps. 10414
• You bring darkness, it becomes night Ps. 10420
• He covers the sky with clouds Ps. 1478
• Evolution, being naturalistic, is fundamentally
  incompatible with the Christian faith
• The road of compromise looks attractive at first,
  but long experience has proved it to be a one-way
  street. The evolutionists at the end of the road
  are never satisfied until their opponents travel
  all the way to the atheistic void at its end.
  --Henry Morris
• Many aspects of evolutionary theory are directly
  contradictory to Gods Word. Evolution cannot be
  baptized to make it compatible with the
  Christian faith. --A.L. Barry

45
The LCMS and Creationism

• From The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark
  A. Noll
• Modern creationism arose, by contrast, from the
  efforts of earnest Seventh-day Adventists who
  wanted to show that the sacred writings of
  Adventist-founder Ellen G. White (who made much
  of a recent earth and the Noachian deluge) could
  provide a framework for studying the history of
  the earth. Especially important for this purpose
  was the Adventist theorist George McCready Price
  (1870-1963), who published a string of
  creationist works culminating in 1923 with The
  New Geology. That book argued that a "simple" or
  "literal" reading of early Genesis showed that
  God had created the world six to eight thousand
  years ago and had used the Flood to construct the
  planet's geological past. Price, an armchair
  geologist with little formal training and almost
  no field experience, demonstrated how a person
  with such a belief could reconstruct natural
  history in order to question traditional
  understandings of the geological column and
  apparent indications for an ancient earth.
  Price's ideas were never taken seriously by
  practicing geologists, and they also had little
  impact outside of Adventist circles. One
  exception was the Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod,
  where a few energized critics of the modern world
  found Price's biblical literalism convincing,
  despite the fact that on almost every other
  religious question the Missouri Synod was about
  as far removed from Seventh-day Adventism as it
  was possible to be.

46
The LCMS and Creationism

• A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of
  the Missouri Synod, 1932
• Of Creation
• We teach that God has created heaven and earth,
  and that in the manner and in the space of time
  recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen.
  1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word,
  and in six days. We reject every doctrine which
  denies or limits the work of creation as taught
  in Scripture. In our days it is denied or limited
  by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to
  science, that the world came into existence
  through a process of evolution that is, that it
  has, in immense periods of time, developed more
  or less out of itself. Since no man was present
  when it pleased God to create the world, we must
  look for a reliable account of creation to God's
  own record, found in God's own book, the Bible.
  We accept God's own record with full confidence
  and confess with Luther's Catechism "I believe
  that God has made me and all creatures."
• Of Man and of Sin
• We teach that the first man was not brutelike nor
  merely capable of intellectual development, but
  that God created man in His own image, Gen. 126,
  27 Eph. 424 Col. 310

47
The LCMS and Creationism

• 1967 Convention Proceedings
• Whereas, Scripture teaches and the Lutheran
  confessions affirm that God by the almighty power
  of His Word created all things in 6 days by a
  series of creative acts (Gen. 1 Ex. 2011 John
  13 Col. 116 Heb. 113 cf. Large Catechism 2,
  11-16 FC Ep. I, 2,4).
• Whereas, The Scriptures teach and the Lutheran
  Confessions affirm that Adam and Eve were real,
  historical human beings, the first two people in
  the world (Gen. 2 Rom. 512-21 1 Cor. 1545-47
  1 Tim. 211-15 cf. FC Ep I, 4 SD I, 9, 27 Ap
  XII, 55), created in God's image with body and
  soul "pure, good, and holy" (FC SD, II, 27).

48
The LCMS and Creationism

• A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional
  Principles, 1972
• We believe, teach, and confess that God, by the
  almighty power of His Word, created all things.
  We also believe that man, as the principal
  creature of God, was specially created in the
  image of God, that is, in a state of
  righteousness, innocence, and blessedness. We
  affirm that Adam and Eve were real historical
  human beings, the first two people in the world,
  and that their fall was a historical occurrence
  which brought sin into the world so that "since
  the fall of Adam all men who are propagated
  according to nature are born in sin" (AC, II, 1).
• We therefore reject the following
• The notion that man did not come into being
  through the direct creative action of God, but
  through a process of evolution from lower forms
  of life which in turn developed from matter that
  is either eternal, autonomous, or self-generating.

49
The LCMS and Creationism

• From The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers
• 1929 survey Do you believe that the creation
  of the world occurred in the manner and time
  recorded in Genesis?
• Lutheran 89
• Baptist 63
• Evangelical 62
• Presbyterian 35
• Methodist 24
• Congregational 12
• Episcopalian 11
• Other 60
• Alfred M. Rehwinkel The Flood (1951)
• John W. Klotz Genes, Genesis, and Evolution
  (1955)
• Paul A. Zimmerman, ed. Darwin, Evolution, and
  Creation (1959)
• President A. L. Barry What About Creation and
  Evolution (2000)
• Erich A. Von Fange In Search of the Genesis
  World Debunking the Evolution Myth (2006)

50
The LCMS and Creationism

• To Commend Preaching and Teaching Creation
• Resolution 2-08A, Adopted at the 2004 Synodical
  Convention
• WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that God is the
  creator of all that exists and is therefore the
  author and giver of life and
• WHEREAS, The hypotheses of macro, organic, and
  Darwinian evolution, including theistic evolution
  or any other model denying special, immediate and
  miraculous creation, undercut this support for
  the honoring of life as a gift of God and
• WHEREAS, Any teaching that advocates the
  transition from one species to another, as
  opposed to maintaining the distinction of species
  according to their kinds (Genesis, Chapter 1),
  rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and
• WHEREAS, It is the churchs duty to produce
  followers of Christ who not only know the
  fundamentals of the Christian faith, but also are
  prepared to give an answer for the hope that
  you have (1 Pet. 315) therefore be it
• Resolved, That all educational agencies and
  institutions of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri
  Synod including early childhood programs,
  elementary schools, high schools, colleges,
  universities and seminaries continue to teach
  creation from the Biblical perspective and be it
  further
• Resolved, That no educational agency or
  institution of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod
  tolerate any teaching that contradicts the
  special, immediate, and miraculous creation by
  God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as an
  explanation for the origin of the universe and
  be it further
• Resolved, That the Synods educational agencies
  and institutions properly distinguish between
  micro and macro evolution and affirm the
  scriptural revelation that God has created all
  species according to their kinds and be it
  finally
• Resolved, that The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod
  in convention remind its pastors and teachers to
  increase emphasis to the doctrine of God as the
  creator and author of life in their preaching and
  teaching.

51
Some Final Thoughts

• Evolution is just a theory.
• Speculative Theology Theology based on human
  philosophy rather than God's ?self-revelation.
• God could have
• A medical analogy veritable vs. putative
• Luther has been called the Copernicus of
  theology while, on the other hand, Copernicus has
  been called the Luther of astronomy. --Donald
  H. Kobe
• From a student essay I dont think that I need
  to justify my answer because it is what I believe
  to be true. It doesnt matter what anyone else
  has to say about it.

52
Paranormal Phenomena

• Paranormal Phenomena are any phenomenon that in
  one or more respects exceeds the limits of what
  is deemed physically possible according to
  current scientific assumptions. -Journal of
  Parapsychology
• A list
• ESP
• Telekinesis
• Astrology
• Faith Healing
• UFOs
• Dowsing
• Channeling
• Homeopathy
• Psychic Surgery

• Levitation
• Pyramid Power
• Palmistry
• Ghosts
• Scientology
• Plant Perception
• Cryptozoology
• Demonic Possession
• Perpetual Motion

53
Paranormal Phenomena

• Is any of this stuff real?
• Have any of them been scientifically disproven?
• Is this a faith question or a sight question?
• The scientific approach
• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
  evidence. --Carl Sagan
• Scientific facts are observable, verifiable and
  reproducible.
• Anecdotes are not evidence.
• Scientific Skepticism
• CSICOP members argue that nothing less than the
  strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should
  be accepted as convincing. Such standards include
  well-designed and controlled scientific
  experiments published in reputable peer-reviewed
  journals, followed by independent replication by
  other researchers. --Wikipedia CSICOP

54
Paranormal Phenomena

• The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge from
  the JREF
• Christianity and the Paranormal
• Since we Christians believe in some paranormal
  things, should we be less skeptical about all
  paranormal things?
• Do you think that natural paranormal phenomena
  (e.g. ESP) conflicts with Christian beliefs? How
  about UFOs/alien life?
• How should a Christian approach Satanic cult
  conspiracy theories? Which tools do you use?
• Randi on Geller
• http//www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.htmli9