Unit 7: Science &
Religion
Brent Royuk
Sci-202
Concordia University
Science and Truth
(from Unit 1)
Does science find truth?
• Are facts true?
• Are laws true?
• Are theories true?
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-melately variety.
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
•
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?
truth vs. Truth
• Empirical vs. Revelatory
• Provisional vs. Absolute
• Tentative vs. Eternal
• Skepticism vs. Faith
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?
S&R Models
•
Let’s make a catalog of approaches
•
We should try to:
1. Be fairly comprehensive.
2. Include perspectives that people
actually have.
S&R Models
Ian Barbour, Religion and Science, 1997.
Four Ways of Relating:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Independence  
Dialogue 
Integration 
Conflict
(Arrow symbols idea from Daniel Johnson)
S&R Models
Massimo Pigliucci
S&R Models
Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.
Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith:
1. Natural Theology
•
Science Demands Christian Theology
•
Science and Christian Theology are
Unrelated
2. Compartmentalism
3. Bible-Only
•
Christian Theology in Spite of Science
•
Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology
•
Science Redefines Christian Theology
4. Science-Only
5. Scientific Theology
6. Complementarity
7. New Synthesis
S&R Models
Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.
Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith:
1. Natural Theology
•
Science Demands Christian Theology
•
Science and Christian Theology are
Unrelated
2. Compartmentalism
3. Bible-Only
•
Christian Theology in Spite of Science
•
Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology
•
Science Redefines Christian Theology
4. Science-Only
5. Scientific Theology
6. Complementarity
7. New Synthesis
S&R Models
S&R Models
Let’s look more closely at the five main
boxes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Naturalism
Theistic Science
Open Science (Qualified Agreement)
Compartmentalism (Independence)
Complementarity
Naturalism
The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be -Carl Sagan, Cosmos.
The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
•
•
•
•
•
•
cf William Paley’s 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?
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
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?
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?
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
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
Compartmentalism/
Independence
•
•
•
I find her [Jean Pond’s] 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… Neoorthodox 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?
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
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 spinoff 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
Complementarity
•
•
They [S&R] 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?
Creation vs. Evolution
A 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.
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
Surveying Creationism
•
•
Creationist Interpretations of Genesis
Reproduced from Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists
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, I’d say this is a strong folkcreationist variant in the LCMS
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
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)
Noah’s 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?
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 1:1. 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 8:22. 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.
Criticisms of YEC
Christian Opponents
Christians who object to YEC reject its metaphysical assumptions (as we’ll see with
ID), but they also criticize its science.
“DWISE1” has a website where he argues that:
1.creationists do teach that their faith would be falsified if evolution and other
scientific findings are true,
2.that many Christians have lost or nearly lost their faith because of creation
science, and
3.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 youngearth 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
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
Intelligent Design
Four Arguments from ID
1.
Irreducible Complexity
•
2.
Michael Behe, the mousetrap example
Complex Specified Information
•
3.
William Dembski, the alphabet example
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
•
4.
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 you’ll 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.
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.
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
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
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
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 God’s 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
can’t 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 16:4 NRSV). --George Murphy
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."
Evolutionary Creationism
or
Theistic 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 God’s 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
Evolutionary Creationism
or
Theistic 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…”
Evolutionary Creationism
or
Theistic 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. 104:14
“You bring darkness, it becomes night” Ps. 104:20
“He covers the sky with clouds” Ps. 147:8
• 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 God’s
Word. Evolution cannot be “baptized” to make it compatible with the
Christian faith. --A.L. Barry
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
Church—Missouri 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.
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. 1:26, 27; Eph.
4:24; Col. 3:10
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. 20:11; John 1:3;
Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; 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. 5:12-21; 1 Cor.
15:45-47; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; 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).
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.
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)
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 church’s 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. 3:15); therefore be it
Resolved, That all educational agencies and institutions of The Lutheran Church–Missouri 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 Church–Missouri 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 Synod’s 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 Church–Missouri 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.
Some Final Thoughts
•
•
Evolution is “just a theory.”
Speculative Theology: Theology based on
human philosophy rather than God's selfrevelation.
•
•
•
•
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 don’t think that I
need to justify my answer because it is what
I believe to be true. It doesn’t matter what
anyone else has to say about it.”
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
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 welldesigned and controlled scientific experiments published
in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by
independent replication by other researchers.” --Wikipedia
“CSICOP”
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.html#i9