Jennifer Wiseman on “Science as an Instrument of Worship”

Kathryn (and Jennifer),

You state, “Controversy over science, as readers of this blog well know, arises from the many opposing voices in the public square and from the pervasive belief that accepting science means compromising one’s belief in the Bible.”

That there is a controversy is patently obvious to anyone who reads BioLogos. However, you make the church sound far more reactionary and idiotic than it is by stating that the controversy is between the church and science.

While I don’t know any Christians who oppose science, I know many who oppose macro-evolution, and for respectable reasons. And there are some interesting blogs to this effect – “Darwins God,” “Uncommon Descent”…  Referring to them as “ignorant” is both condescending and needlessly provocative.

Nevertheless, you are right about science and worship. Science stretches our vision, and so, in as far as the eye provides material for worship, so too science! However, the theory of evolution replaces the elegant Genesis account with material unworthy of worship – natural selection, random mutation, and the survival of the fittest – not my idea of Sunday morning contemplation!

Daniel Mann,

By rejecting a specific scientific conclusion, one is rejecting the scientific method of determining fact.  This is how opposing evolution is also opposing science.

Charlie,

Please clarify! I don’t see how rejecting one theory represents rejecting science!

Like so many other posts at Biologos, I find some of Ms Applegate’s statements to be at a disappointingly high level.  For example: 

“The first, ignorance, is not specific to believers; scientific comprehension is not a high priority in American culture today, and this gets reflected in the kinds of things we do or don’t talk about in church.”

I wonder if she would be willing to provide us with 3-4 specific examples of recent scientific discoveries of which we are ignorant.  How is this ignorance reflected in the kinds of things we talk about?  How exactly does she see being better informed in these areas as stirring us to worship, or informing our ideas of stewardship?

Charlie, let’s rephrase your statement:

“By rejecting a specific biblical conclusion, one is rejecting the hermeneutical method of determining fact.  This is how opposing creation in 6 literal 24 hour days is also opposing Scripture.”

Would you consider that a valid statement? I would assume not. The issue here is not rejecting science or rejecting Scripture; I believe that for the most part those on the different sides of the debate accept God’s revelation through Scripture and nature to be good. What is disagreed upon and where the conflict comes is in the specific interpretations of the words of Scripture and the observations of nature.

I would agree with Daniel that the evidence for a Darwinian “molecules to man” evolutionary process are not so clear-cut that other interpretations are unreasonable, in the same way that the text of Genesis is not so definitive that a non-literal reading of the “days” of Genesis 1 is out of the question.

Let me also add that I second Daniel’s comment that the controversy is not between the church and science. I don’t hear many church people arguing against physics or chemistry, or technological advances that have come from science, or how the organs and systems within living things work. The main issue of controversy is over a specific (albeit overarching) aspect of biology. But coming from a physics person, to say that evolution is the sum of science, such that the rejection of evolution is the rejection of science, does injustice to the scope of scientific endeavor.

Back to speaking about ‘the scientific method’ as if there were *only one* and not many methods, right Charlie ; - )

@ Kendalf:
you wrote: “I don’t hear many church people arguing against physics or chemistry, or technological advances that have come from science, or how the organs and systems within living things work.”

If one limits the meaning of ‘science’ to classical triad of ‘physics, chemistry & biology’ then they miss out on a whole slew of other sciences.

There certainly *are* today ‘many church people’ arguing about ecology & ‘climate science’ & about biotech ethics.

As an ‘astronomer’ Wiseman is actually quite safe & protected. If she started dirtying her hands in sciences such as anthropology (e.g. physical or cultural) or psychology, or the behavior of living organisms, then her ‘faith in science’ would face more of a lithmus test. Far more astronomers & physicists are people of faith today than anthropologists or psychologists.

Does anyone at BioLogos wonder why?

All I am saying is that if one rejects evolution regardless of the large amounts of evidence supporting it, then one is rejecting the process of coming to a conclusion based on evidence.  Call it science or not.

For an excellent example of science as an instrument of worship, I recommend Rob Bell’s “Everything is Spiritual.”  Whether or not all the science and theology in it is correct, the science presented is definitely directed toward the purpose of worshipping the creator-God.

Charlie (and Kendalf),

Many people reject macro-evolution without rejecting the basics of the scientific process – observation, quantification, and replication. For example, many cite the problem with the fossil record.

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.” (David Raup)

“We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not…I tried in vain to document examples of the kind of slow directional change we all thought ought to be there every since Darwin told us that natural selection should leave precisely such a tell-tale signal…I found instead that once species appear in the fossil record they tend not to change very much at all. Species remain imperturbably, implacably resistant to change as a matter of course – often for millions of years.” (Niles Eldridge)

Charlie (and Kendalf),

Continued—

Evolutionists are now trying to reconstruct Darwin’s “tree” based upon molecular or genetic inter-phyla similarities. However, their “tree” remains a disheveled mess according to the NEW SCIENTIST:

“Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as in morphology…Congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within he last couple of decades, the situation is little better.”

Of course, many evolutionists will disagree with these conclusions. However, I just cite the above evolutionists to prove that evolution isn’t close to a slam-dunk.

Nice quote mining there, Daniel. Are we trying to pretend that Niles Eldredge doesn’t accept evolutionary theory?

Daniel Mann,

Ignoring the evolutionary evidence is like ignoring archeological evidence.  How do we know about many aspects of ancient egyptian culture, even though we weren’t there to see it?  Same with saying the sun is made mostly of hydrogen and helium.  All of our data to support this claim is indirect (light wavelengths); we’re not taking samples of the sun.  In many ways, evolution is supported better than these two examples because we have directly observed and actually created in some instances “microevolution”.  Is it really that big of a stretch to see how micro can lead to macro?

As far as fossils and genetics, please give me one example that contradicts evolution.

Charlie,

You wrote, “Is it really that big of a stretch to see how micro can lead to macro?”

I think it is, and many scientists would agree. How about the Cambrian explosion:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of palaeontology…The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with the idea that they gradually evolved:

1.  Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear…
2.  Sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Stephen Jay Gould)

The proof just doesn’t seem to be there.

BeagleLady,

I’m glad you’re still a fan! No, I’m not saying that he isn’t an evolutionist, but he’s willing to admit that there are serious problems.

Gregory Arago wrote: “If one limits the meaning of ‘science’ to classical triad of ‘physics, chemistry & biology’ then they miss out on a whole slew of other sciences.”

Gregory, I think we see things similarly, although perhaps I didn’t convey my thoughts clearly. I didn’t mean to limit science to just the classical triad; I was just citing general examples.

The point that I was making was that Wiseman—and Applegate’s summary—uses too broad of a brush in painting the conflict as between the church and science. The combined areas of science that are “rejected” by even the most science-phobic Christians is far smaller than the full scope of science, and thus to say that the church in general is opposed to science in general does injustice to both the church and science.

That being said, after reading Wiseman’s paper I am in agreement with the intent of her essay, even though I may disagree on some of the specifics.

I’m glad you’re still a fan! No, I’m not saying that he isn’t an evolutionist, but he’s willing to admit that there are serious problems.

Not so.  Scientists disagree about how evolution occurs, but not that it occurs.  Eldredge is a proponent of punctuated equilibrium.  Besides, he’s published many books on evolutionary theory, including one called The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism.
Now, does that really sound to you as though he thinks there are serious problems with evolutionary theory?  Please, do tell!

BL,

Isn’t it possible that he can hold to evolution, and yet have the honesty to acknowledge that it has significant challenges/problems?

The reason people have a problem with evolution is that it is not 100% proven, which is what makes it a theory.  Please give me ANY example in nature that is 100% proven!!!  The earth revolving around the sun is just a theory (a theory that is strongly supported by a lot of evidence).  DNA being the fundamental genetic code is just a theory (another theory well supported by evidence).

What makes you think that ‘evolutionary theory’ is *only* about ‘nature’, Charlie?

You continue, unfortunately in the face of much contrary evidence, to entertain an illusion. You think, first, that there is *ONLY ONE* so-called ‘scientific method.’ This is absolutely & unequivocally *FALSE*. If you’ve got *anything* to ‘prove’ otherwise, let’s have it.

Second, you hide behind a screen of ‘ideological naturalism’ to *assume* that the only *valid* knowledge is ‘scientific’ knowledge. “Oh ye, of little faith.”

Kendalf has seen and heard well what I am expressing. I agree with him. Yes, it is possible to be a ‘scientist’ & a person who is ‘religious’ (whatever that means today), who has ‘faith’. Even for a 25 yr-old, perhaps especially, there is a ‘spiritual’ dimension that is waiting to be discovered by those who have not closed their minds to *only* material or natural ‘answers.’

Are you open to such possibilities, Charlie?

Isn’t it possible that he can hold to evolution, and yet have the honesty to acknowledge that it has significant challenges/problems?

No, for him evolution is not a problem. He simply proposes a different mechanism for how it proceeds. Please stop your quote mining.