Why BioLogos?
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. Darrel Falk serves as president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.
.jpg)
Outside of my family and my personal relationship with God, there is nothing in recent years that has shaped me more profoundly than the Sunday School class I teach. It all began ten years ago, when I was asked to do a three week series on biology and faith. The attendees were septuagenarians and octogenarians, so they had grown up within or immediately following the era of the Scopes Trial. Most had given little thought to science; all had given much thought to religion. I talked about the evidence for evolution and why the fact of evolution created no spiritual crisis for me; indeed, I told them it significantly enriched my understanding of the nature of God. Even though this was a group of elderly lifelong evangelical Christians, the discussions went surprisingly well. They threw no blackboard erasures at me and they didn’t shout me down or have me ejected from the church. Indeed, to my amazement, they asked me back—they wanted me to be their teacher.
Since that time, I have presented almost 400 Sunday School lessons. Almost all are in my computer, and I look forward someday to getting old myself so I can go back and learn the lessons I have been teaching others. Interestingly, ever since that first three-week series, I have never again taught a whole lesson about science and faith. It quickly became apparent that this is not what they needed. When life is winding down—when your spouse has just died, or your lifelong companion has developed Alzheimer’s, when you spend Christmas alone because you have no family anymore, when your husband of fifty years is in the hospital with an amputated leg and unclear mind—you don’t need a Sunday School lesson on the relationship between science and religion. As you face the most difficult circumstances you have ever faced, what you need to know is that the hope that is laid out so clearly in the Bible, and is articulated so well through good biblical scholarship and wise theology, still rings true after all these years. You need to sing the theologically rich songs that so epitomized your spiritual life during earlier years, and you need to let those same songs enrich your life again now that you are old. You need to revisit the Bible stories that informed your youth and you need to see why they inform your old age even more. You need to be able to laugh. You need to love and you need to allow yourself to be loved as well.
Even though I was the teacher through all of this, I was the one who was being taught about faith. I was taught the beauty of Christian love and hope by watching my dear friend Elbert say good bye to his beloved Lois during her struggle with cancer. I was taught about Christian influence as I listened to a host of grandchildren talk about how they wanted to be just like their Grandpa. We knew him as Ron and we loved him, but they knew him as Grandpa and they wanted to be just like him. I was taught about peace that endures as I watched Hazel bear the loss of her lifelong partner carrying a gentle smile on her face, despite the loss she bore in her heart. I wonder how many times we have sung “How Great Thou Art” at our memorial services as we each celebrated God’s Presence in the midst of life’s ultimate crises.
I have never been more convinced that Christianity is based on real foundations than I have been by seeing it lived out in this community for the past ten years. The majority of the original class-members are gone now, but the group—past and present— continues to shape me deeply as I reflect on their well-lived lives. Paul expresses my sentiment exactly when, in speaking of a different Christian community, he wrote: “... Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
So the science/faith dialog has been virtually irrelevant within this Christian community that has played such an important role in my life. If I had brought it up in class, it would have distracted them from things that were much more important to them. Put simply: it just hasn’t mattered. So why, in another segment of my life, do I invest so much time and energy in the very thing that is almost irrelevant to the typical Christian? Why all these posts day after day on Genesis by scholars like Peter Enns, John Walton, Kenton Sparks, and Paul Seely? Why the very frank exchanges with Stephen Meyer? We are walking a fine line, Steve and I. He is simply a brother on this journey and our discussions would be futile if ever our exchanges eroded into something not characterized by mutual respect and even love. Why the frank dialog between John Walton and Vern Poythress? Why do I and many others like me put so much energy into this science/faith dialog if, for most Christians, it is virtually irrelevant to that which matters most in life?
Ten days ago I had an email message from one of my former students, who I will call John. He has a very special place in my heart. He overcame great adversity in his life and has become a first rate researcher in molecular biology. I played a small role in helping him to believe in himself and overcome challenges. I always knew he would succeed and I’m very proud of him. John has moved away so I haven’t seen him for a few years. Prior to that we sometimes talked about faith and I was inspired by his journey. I think he knows that I had personally hoped that some day he would replace me, teaching my Christian college biology courses and being a spiritual mentor himself to the next generation of our students. His email message to me indicated that he had visited the BioLogos website. In response to that message, I asked John if he would be willing to write a guest blog. Since he had overcome a lot on his journey towards faith, I felt he had an important story to tell and I wanted him to write about it. I suppose I’ll never forget his response so earth-shattering it was to me. “So do you want an agnostic to write for you?” he said. John has lost the most important thing in his life, and it happened, as I see it, because the Church (including myself) had not been able to adequately prepare him theologically and biblically for what he would learn as he delved deeply into biology—especially he tells me, the biology of the brain. The pieces no longer fit for John. My heart aches every time I think about it. Unless things change, John is not going to experience the rich life and the fulfillment that so characterizes the lives of those on the other side of my existence—my Sunday School class community. This is the reason for the long days and short nights that have come to characterize my life lately. I don’t want those who come to learn about science to be deprived of the richness that characterizes the Christian life. I write about this in a "White Paper we posted several months ago. A conduit must be constructed between the two sides. We can’t go on like this any longer.
Paul’s statement, to which I refer above—“Christ in you, the hope of glory”—comes from the first chapter of Colossians. Wanting all to know this hope, this hope of glory, Paul ends the chapter, with these words: “To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.” May this be true of each of us as well—there is much at stake.
(Photo courtesy of Flickr/sadmonkey)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
February 8th 2010
Deeply moving, Darrel. Thank you. It’s a good reminder to keep our priorities in line. Such eternal words, “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Darrell,
While I applaud your desire to build a conduit – “A conduit must be constructed between the two sides [evolution and the Bible]. We can’t go on like this any longer” – I must add that there are conduits that will stand against the storms and those that won’t (Mat. 7:24-27).
Your conduit rests upon the shifting, failing sands of the theory of evolution. Furthermore, in order to build this conduit, you’ve had to bring the Bible into sync with Darwin, something that has caused you to dismiss the physical/historical teachings of the Bible, against the affirmations of the NT.
I think that there are better conduits to be built – those that will attempt to bring the science of the origins of life into harmony with the Bible, instead of the other way around (2 Cor. 10:4-5).
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Darrell,
A couple of questions. You said “John is not going to experience the rich life and the fulfillment that so characterizes the lives of those on the other side of my existence.” Specifically, how is he (and other agnostics) not experiencing a rich and fulfilling life, living a life without religion? Could someone not make a profound discovery in science, climb an active volcano, marry the love of their life, and be surrounded by a loving family, while not being religious? Being 25, I feel this life of mine has already been rich and fulfilling and I can’t wait to see where my life goes in the future, but I guess my real question is: isn’t a rich an fulfilling life all subjective?
Also, I do not see your connection of faith with love and enduring peace. What is your definition of faith?
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Hi Daniel,
While I appreciate your caution with the “shifting, failing sands of the theory of evolution,” as an example of a biological theory which is temporary though not eternal, I must express more doubt about your other criticism. To say that ‘evolutionary theory evolves’ is merely ironic, whereas to say ‘the origin of life evolves (into being)’ is more bravely absurd.
You write about “the science of the origins of life.” Indeed, isn’t this field one of the most *rigorous* of *all* of the ‘sciences’ studied in the university today?! Isn’t there as little reason to doubt or to criticize ‘origins of life’ as a field, just as few people question mathematics? Shouldn’t we celebrate the ‘facts’ shown by ‘origin(s) of life’ scientists like Sagan and Davies and Bradley and de Duve and Maynard Smith and Luisi and Teilhard de Chardin and the abiogenesists? These are ‘pure scientists’, if there ever could be such a thing, aren’t they?
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Hi Dr./Pastor Falk,
You wrote:
“I talked about the evidence for evolution and why the fact of evolution created no spiritual crisis for me; indeed, I told them it significantly enriched my understanding of the nature of God.”
Since Christians believe in a ‘personal God,’ would it not make more sense to speak of ‘the CHARACTER of’ God rather than ‘the NATURE of’ God?
God is in some ways extra-natural & supRA-natural indeed!
Televisions also don’t ‘naturally evolve’ but require ‘creation,’ purposeful guidance, choice, innovation, invention, etc. I find it is only ‘naturalists’ and ‘reductionists’ who suggest that ‘technology naturally evolves’ or that ‘technology is naturally selected.’ Here is where I find your position unclear.
Do you consider yourself a ‘naturalist’? I’m a ‘scientist’ who is *not* a ‘naturalist’. But can a biologist be a non-naturalist?
‘We’ can surely ‘go on’ smoother when we make clearer communication.
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Charlie, (#4082)
It is not possible to adequately answer your questions in the space we have here. However, I urge you to consider reading two books by Timothy Keller: “Reasons for God” and “Counterfeit Gods.”
Darrel
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Gregory,
If these are facts, then I and others who believe in the Bible are in big trouble. However, I am pursued that life can’t emerge from non-life an Michael Denton suggests:
Reply to this comment“If a cell were magnified a thousand million times…in every direction we looked, we would see all sorts of robot-like machines…the task of designing even one such molecular machine would be completely beyond our capacity.”
February 8th 2010
Your language of ‘molecular machines’ & reference to M. Denton (though Denton parted with the Discovery Institute supposedly because it was ‘too Christian’) suggest to me that you are a supporter of theories of ‘intelligent design.’ Is this accurate to say?
My point of interest was rather in learning how ‘rigorous’ or ‘scientific’ you think studies in ‘origin(s) of life’ may or may not be.
As I wrote in an earlier thread, I find Dr. S. Meyer & Dr. Falk to be speaking past each other to their own constructed audiences based on their identification either with *origins* (Meyer) or with *processes* (Falk).
If the concept of ‘BioLogos’ can help to bridge this seemingly unbridgeable gap is for me of great interest!
I read Dr. Falk here in this thread addressing not ‘Why BioLogos’ but instead ‘Why we are doing what we are doing in this Foundation which is called BioLogos.’
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Please excuse, I forgot to address properly! : (
#4104 - “Your language of ‘molecular machines’...” is addressed to Daniel.
That was bad manners of me, sorry!
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2010
Dr. Falk,
What is it about brain biology that would lead your student to lose faith?
How did you prepare him, and perhaps how could you (or others) have prepared him better to pursue biology research while staying connected to a community of faith?
Is the problem perhaps too few Christian faith communities where conclusions about brain biology are acceptable?
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
John,
I rather doubt it was brain biology per se. It could have been many things. The relationship between body, mind, and brain is a fascinating topic and a deep subject. There are many aspects that are difficult to process alone within a hostile environment that have impact on how we view our faith. Many other topics in science, social sciences, and humanities are similarly challenging.
We need community - preferably face-to-face. But even virtual helps.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
Responding to the “brain biology” conversation:
Maybe he learned that memory can be explained 100% biochemically (they have even induced an artificial memory into a fruit fly!!!) and because of that, the student didn’t believe in a soul, which led to not believing in heaven etc.
We must remember however, that science doesn’t understand everything. That’s what keeps us scientists working. That doesn’t mean the Bible has it right though.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
A couple more thoughts coming from RJS and Charlie’s comments:
Perhaps Christian higher education should do more to prepare students for entering those “hostile environments” after college. From my own experience in graduate school, many professors do make a point of engaging topics in a way that would ignore or belittle faith. Does a biochemical basis for memory (or emotions/spirituality/etc.) _really_ rule out a soul/spirit? Seems like a non-sequitter for me, but I can see if that conclusion is promoted by people that seem so smart, it could become convincing.
But I think the fault might also lie with a feeling that most evangelical churches are “hostile environments” for scientists. Dr. Falk’s whitepaper referenced above has some excellent thoughts on that. If you feel alienated from the faith community, it is certainly more difficult to have a faith walk that grows along with your educational/professional growth.
By the way, Dr. Falk, I sure hope you would still allow your former student to write a guest blog as an agnostic! His “journey” could be the start of a very interesting discussion.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
John VanZwieten,
No, biochemistry doesn’t rule out the possibility for a soul; that’s why I said science doesn’t answer all of life’s questions. Faith comes in when one believes something (like souls) even though there is no scientific evidence to support it. So if one were to base conclusions on a scientific basis (based on evidence and not faith), the existence of a soul is merely an untested hypothesis, a simple guess.
We cannot determine a universal truth without evidence. Faith let’s everyone determine what their own personal truth is and, as we all know, they are very inconsistent with each other.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
John,
You asked about whether my former student would still be welcome to write a guest blog: He would be especially welcome do so now….and he knows that!! He has much to offer the church no matter what perspective he is writing from.
Darrel
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
Charlie: “science doesn’t answer all of life’s questions.”
But you also said in another thread, Charlie, that (from my perhaps faulty memory) ‘scientific knowledge’ is the *only* kind of real knowledge.
So do you not see that you are in serious contradiction here?
There are ‘non-scientific’ *types* of knowledge that perhaps *can* answer the questions outside of the ‘merely scientific’ domain.
What are you doing to seek out questions in (with the help of) these domains, Charlie?
One of the questions people around the world ask in their life is: are human beings inherently ‘spiritual’? Does God exist? Every single Indian person I’ve ever met says, without a moment of hesitation: YES!
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
These are not contradictions because I am acknowledging there are things we don’t know. Science doesn’t have all the answers but it’s the only unbiased productive method to find the answers.
Also, it is impossible to determine what science (or if humans implementing science) can or cannot answer. That’s like saying some questions are irreducibly complex for science to explain them. We can’t see into the future so us scientists leave it as is: unknown.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2010
You are admitting that there are things *outside* of ‘science.’ But you are not openly admitting, Charles, that these things can contribute ‘knowledge’ to humanity.
Science doesn’t *happen* without human beings ‘doing it.’ At least we can agree upon that.
What does the ideology of ‘scientism’ mean to you, Charlie? Do you promote it?
Reply to this commentFebruary 10th 2010
Don’t know the definition of scientism
Reply to this commentFebruary 10th 2010
I don’t acknowledge anything is outside of science. That’s a conclusion we can’t make because we don’t know. We can’t see into the future. I acknowledge simply that there are many unknown areas that science does not have an explanation for. How can lack of knowledge “contribute ‘knowledge’ to humanity”?
Reply to this comment