This post, the last in my series on Elgin Hushbeck's Evidence for the Bible (due to time constraints, I won't be reviewing the last two chapters), will briefly describe and comment on his views on the relationship between science and religion. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge in this area, I think that Hushbeck does a better job here than in his previous chapters.
Hushbeck begins by providing some very interesting perspective on two very old examples of the "war" between science and religion. The first is the story of Galileo. The Catholic Church's negative reaction to Galileo, Hushbeck notes, was largely designed to prevent a scandal that Protestants could exploit. (The Reformation was in full swing at the time.) Many Protestants actually embraced Galileo's findings, many Roman Catholic churchmen supported him, and he himself remained a devout believer. So the story of Galileo does not reveal a fundamental opposition between science and religion. The other example is the myth of the flat earth. In the words of Jeffrey Burton Russell, "with extraordinarily few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat." Shame on our public school history classes for teaching us this fable.
Hushbeck proceeds to outline four views on the relationship between science and the Bible. One, which is untenable, is that science is knowledge and the Bible is myth. Two intermediary positions hold that one or the other provides "inferior" knowledge. A fourth asserts that science provides knowledge of nature while the Bible provides knowledge of God. Hushbeck's favorite is the fourth position: the Bible generally is not intended to provide accurate scientific data. In his words, "Science deals only with the natural world," whereas "Christianity deals with the relationship between God...and...human beings." (My only objection to this statement is that it tends to militate against any kind of biblically-based environmental ethic.) Nor is his a naively absolutist version of this theory, for he recognizes that while much of the Bible is poetic, there are places where its claims legitimately do overlap with science. More about that in a moment. Hushbeck is also drawn to the third view, which suggests that the Bible provides knowledge whereas science provides inferior knowledge. He contrasts "the fluid nature of science" and the provisional nature of its conclusions with the immutability of the Bible, which was given by an all-knowing God. Hushbeck is here correct about the provisionality of science, but one cannot help but notice the absence of any kind of sophisticated theory of inspiration and of any acknowledgement that different eras and segments of the church have had (and continue to have) different biblical canons and different readings thereof. Hushbeck would probably do well to acknowledge some provisionality at least in our readings of the Bible, even if his confessional tradition cannot admit this of the text itself.
Another interesting thread in Hushbeck's analysis is that he plays around the edges of the historic "accommodation" apologetic. In the view of the vast majority of the theological giants in the Jewish and Christian traditions (including, for example, John Calvin), the Bible speaks of God as having human emotions and body parts because it was accommodated to the conceptual categories of the people to whom it was given. Accommodation finds some support in Galatians 3:24, where Paul describes the Old Testament Law as a pedagogue, or tutor, designed to bring us to Christ. It was not the highest expression of God's truth, but it was a necessary educational tool. Accommodation has been used to explain a variety of outmoded ideas that we find in the Bible, including the ancient cosmology that we find reflected in Genesis. Hushbeck hints at something like this explanation when he suggests on page 91 that if in trying to make a point the Bible contradicted accepted "'scientific' views of the time, the examples would not have had any meaning." He suggests again on page 117 that God didn't really intend in Genesis to explain the mechanics of creation. Unfortunately, he almost immediately goes on to explain how the sequence of events in Genesis 1 "conforms well to the sequence of events described by scientists," by suggesting for example that the separation of the waters was the creation of the water cycle, and the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day was from the perspective of the earth's surface: "the breaking up of the cloud cover" (though of course no one was actually on the earth's surface at the time). A fully committed accommodation view would avoid such strained interpretations. Since Genesis 1 roughly follows the creation schematic in the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish-- minus the paganism, of course-- the appropriation of this scheme and its attribution to a singular, loving God could be compared to the way that theistic evolutionists today take the accepted modern scientific paradigm and make God its designer and initiator.
Hushbeck's chapters on science also rehearse several arguments for design. He points, for example, to the fine-tuning of the universe that seems perfectly tailored for the existence of life. That fine-tuning is evident in the universe is basically uncontroversial, though a sufficiently large array of alternate universes would probably explain it about as well as does intelligent design. Hushbeck also points to the Big Bang, at which point not only the universe, but also time, space, and the laws of nature came into being from-- for all intents and purposes-- nothing at all. There few or no really plausible alternatives to the Big Bang, so the obvious question is, why did it happen? There may in fact be non-theistic ways to explain the Big Bang (like brane cosmology, Stephen Hawking's wave function, and chaotic inflation), though Hushbeck does not mention them. Of course, none of them escape Carl Sagan's trenchant question of where our hypothetical first cause itself comes from. (Hushbeck, by the way, might have done a little better at answering this question from a Christian perspective had he explored some classical philosophy. Not that there's a perfect answer.)
On the subject of evolution, Hushbeck exhibits unfortunate hostility toward scientists. He asserts, for example, that textbook authors engage in outright fraud, that scientists are closed minded and ignore difficulties, and that they "fight...hard to keep contrary views from being heard." Granted, he makes some good points. For example, he rightly points out that scientists don't have a very good idea of how life could have originated, and that it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this could occur even under ideal conditions. He also points to Michael Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity, which have drawn considerable criticism but probably will remain at least partly valid for some time yet. On the other hand, he includes two spurious claims. The first is that there are no known transitional fossils, which is untrue. The second is Michael Denton's analysis of Cytochrome C, which is widely regarded as spurious (see also here). While I certainly sympathize with Michael Behe's argument from irreducible complexity, I think that theistic evolution is generally a more credible position and should be the default perspective for lay Christians not engaged in scientific research.
4 comments:
Chris,
A couple of comments/corrections.
I am not clear why my view of science and the Bible would “militate against any kind of biblically-based environmental ethic.” Environmental science, yes, but not environmental ethic.
Concerning your comments that “Hushbeck would probably do well to acknowledge some provisionality at least in our readings of the Bible, even if his confessional tradition cannot admit this of the text itself.” I do this in several places. For example page 62 I say “Sometimes the problem is in our understanding of a biblical passage…” And in a footnote on page 86 “This does not preclude the possibility that we may get more information that would alter our perceptions of a biblical passage. But while our understanding of a passage may need revision, the passage as originally written would not.” I also have a section on interpretation in the second book.
As for your comment that, “Unfortunately, he almost immediately goes on to explain how the sequence of events in Genesis 1 "conforms well to the sequence of events described by scientists,"
You seem to have missed the main point of this section which is that,
“Even if we try to look to accounts in Genesis for a scientific description of creation, the details given concerning the actual mechanics of the creation are sketchy enough that they could be read to fit (or not to fit, depending on your intent) a number of possible scenarios.” (pg 115)
Finally, concerning your statement that:
“On the subject of evolution, Hushbeck exhibits unfortunate hostility toward scientists. He asserts, for example, that textbook authors engage in outright fraud, that scientists are closed minded and ignore difficulties, and that they "fight...hard to keep contrary views from being heard.”
Actually I cited, “Jonathan Wells’ recent book, Icons of Evolution, which exposes the exaggerations, errors and in some cases out right fraud, behind some of the well known examples of evidence of evolution commonly used in textbooks” I think the evidence he points to is pretty clear.
I would also ask, why is it “unfortunate hostility” to point out what has happened? One only as look to the reaction to even the proposal of intelligent design, the mandating that evolution be taught not as a theory but as a fact, the restrictions on teaching any of the problems or difficulties, and the threats to employment to anyone who expresses doubts about evolution. I certainly did not intent to imply all scientists are guilty of this and perhaps I could have been clearer here, but that this is happening is clear.
To claim that scientist in general approach this subject with objectivity going only where the evidence leads is not paying much attention to what is happening. For example last year there was a proposal in CA to not allow home schoolers from going to State University because they were not taught about evolution correctly.
I have a general rule that has served me pretty well. When the evidence supports a position, supporters usually argue the evidence. I don’t see evolutionist arguing the evidence, I see them in a range of ways as trying to suppress any opposition.
As for theistic evolution, in theory I have no problem with, however given the problems with defining what exactly evolution is, these would only be even further magnified when it comes to theistic evolution. The big problem with evolution is exactly how it can explain the large changes that result in different kinds of animals. If God is the result of such changes, then what room is really left for the evolution part of theistic evolution.
Mr. Hushbeck,
"Theistic evolution" gets used in a veriety of somewhat confusing ways. On the one hand, it can refer to person who believe that special providence intervened at each "leap" from one species to another. On the other, it can refer to persons who believe that God initially configured the universe in such a way that evolution would naturally take the course it has, without any need for special intervention. I tend toward the latter camp; the specialness of special providence, in my opinion, stems from its being a response to created beings' need, faith, and action.
My "environmental ethic" comment was really a minor criticism; thus why it was in parentheses. It was intended to express that if the Bible tells us only about God's relationship to human beings, as the statement I highlighted in your book suggests, then it doesn't tell us about his relationship to the rest of creation. In other words, it's little a semantic issue that could be fixed very easily in a future edition. I hope you'll take all my critiques in that spirit. They are intended to be constructive: things to ponder and to improve where necessary. I'm not trying to smear you personally or anything.
As for the "unfortunate hostility", it came across as something of an ad hominem. I don't think it's really very constructive, is all, even if in some cases your generalizations really do apply.
Your book was enjoyable, and our spirited exchanges have been as well. My best to you,
-Chris
I did not take your criticism personally and will consider your criticisms in my future writing. I look forward to your comments on my second book, particularly the first two chapters, though given your time constraints I realize it might be some time. God Bless.
Regarding the statement "scientists are closed minded and ignore difficulties" I generally agree that most scientists seem close-minded when it come to their pet theories. [I should reveal that I am a geologist.] For example, Lord Kelvin refused to adjust his calculations on the age of the Earth after radioactive decay was discovered as an internal energy source.
Every time some proposal arises to suggest that non-scientific frameworks might be examined alongside scientific frameworks in science courses, science organizations rally to defeat such proposals. Perhaps this is as it should be because presenting issues of faith alongside scientific evidence in a K-12 setting might shake a student's faith, invite open arguments in a classroom, or invite protests (pro and con) outside the school. Usually, though, the scientific organizations simply protest that non-scientific frameworks should not be presented in a science course simply because they are not scientific and cannot be 'proven.'
The pro-faith side usually argues that science simply presents "theories" that cannot be proven. Those individuals overlook the fact that such theories are used every time they visit a doctor, to find every gallon of oil they burn in their auto, to generate every watt of electricity, and so on. Scientific theories are not speculation but are based on extensive observations of highly complex processes. In essence, theories cannot be proven only because scientists might discover some tidbit of information that might cause them to refine 1 to 5 percent (typically) of the overall theory. The problem sometimes is that a major discovery (e.g., plate tectonics, an impact crater) sometimes warrants a new theory or major adjustments of old theories. When that happens, some scientists will hold tight to old theories and refuse to believe the new ones. For example, California's former State Geologist Olaf P. Jenkins, then in his 80s, when asked about the then widely accepted theory of plate tectonics stated that it was a credible theory. Sometimes only after people like Lord Kelvin die and other scientists who held fast to their old theories retire can major innovations prevail within the scientific community.
Post a Comment