Here are a few stories about science and faith you might have missed last week.
Last week was the two year anniversary of the Ham-Nye debate. One of the notable admissions by Ken Ham during the debate was his claim that very rapid evolution within “kinds” occurred after the animals disembarked the ark. Joel Duff at Naturalis Historia posted a devastating critique of that position, using evidence from the Bible that things have not evolved that quickly.
There were a couple of pieces at The Huffington Post worth noticing. Laura Rediehs gives an introduction to science and religion in her Historical and Conceptual Introduction to Science and Religion. And Greg Cootsona wrote a very interesting piece about the different way that emerging adults think about the relationship between science and religion in iPod or LP? Surprising Ways Emerging Adults Think about Science and Religion. He says,
“Talking about "religion and science" may sound like a conversation between two things, but 18-30 year olds see it differently. They have grown up in environments saturated with options and possibilities. . . This generation has been formed in an age of dazzling diversity of all kinds, including worldviews, religions, sexual identities, and racial-ethnic concerns. Life is open with greater possibilities than for past generations.”
Here’s a trailer for a new documentary I stumbled upon, Faith and Doubt: Science and Religion in Search for Truth. I don’t know anything about it other than this. If you’re in the Chattanooga area, you can see a screening of it next week.
Finally, on the face of it, this article from Christianity Today by O. Alan Noble has nothing to do with science and religion. It’s about politics. But when I read it, I couldn’t help thinking about it in the light of the science and faith conversation we’re involved in. Read the following paragraphs with that in mind:
"The fear is that if we don’t exaggerate the facts, if we don’t overstate our argument, if we don’t make a threat sound more serious than it really is, if we don’t make up a few stories that could be true in some sense, then voters won’t be moved to act. And everything will remain the same or get worse.
What this logic assumes is that we cannot trust our neighbors. That we cannot hope all things about them and their ability to reason, understand complex issues, and vote. We treat our neighbors as children who have to be tricked in order to get them to do what we believe is best for them. This kind of hopelessness and disregard for our neighbors is paternalistic and unloving."
Playing fast and loose with the facts in order to mobilize people for what we believe to be a good cause ought to be problematic for Christians. The difficulty for the science and faith dialogue, is that many of the issues get very technical, very quickly. So we have to summarize and otherwise skim over nuances of the issues. Perhaps there is a fine line between this and saying things we know will be taken a different way than we intend them; but that line is there. Let us be speakers of truth, presenting the facts clearly and fairly, and representing each other’s arguments charitably.