On evangelical seminaries, etc., and religion/science

Yes, the evangelical seminaries need to do a much better job. But therein
lies the rub....

At least 3 other evangelical places are now doing graduate education on
science and religion, and all 3 are taking an ID approach. These are as
follows:

(1) Biola http://www.biola.edu/academics/scs/scienceandreligion/

"Biola University is pleased to announce a new Master of Arts degree
program in Science and Religion.

Since the Enlightenment, but particularly during the past century,
naturalists have advocated science as the only valid source of public truth
and have attempted to reduce religion to private, personal experience. Their
campaign to foster warfare between science and Christianity (in particular)
has been largely successful in generating the stereotypes about science and
religion that dominate western culture today.

Evangelical Christians who train in the sciences often feel pressured to
compartmentalize their faith from their profession, or do not feel equipped
to address or change the cultural stereotypes regarding science and faith."
etc.

NB the emphasis here.

(2) SBC seminary in Louisville
http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/dembski-moves-from-waco-to-louisville.html

Obviously ID.

(3) Biblical Seminary, Hatfield, PA http://www.arn.org/authors/newman.html

Ditto.

****

My comments are as follows. All 3 of these programs are directed by ASA
members. As I've tried to say to my ASA friends on both sides of this
issue, there just isn't enough helpful conversation about ID among those of
us who have common theological views on so many other things. This list, as
I've indicated recently, is not representative broadly of the ASA
membership--not on this issue at least. I am not pointing fingers at
anyone, either implicitly or explicitly, I am simply stating a fact.

There are at least two rather large camps within the ASA presently, when it
comes to understandings of Christian vocation. On the one hand, there is
the group I mostly identify with, which includes friends like Keith Miller,
Ian Hutchinson, George Murphy, and Jennifer Wiseman (to name just a very
small number). We (if I may include myself) see our vocation in science
(mine obviously in a field related to science but not in science itself) as
one of bringing salt and light to a highly secular professional community.
We accept the standards of that community, in terms of what counts as good
science and what does not, and we try to live out our lives not by
"compartmentalizing" our faith as implied in Biola's statement (but this
image of compartmentalizing has lots of examples that could be offered to
support it), but by putting our lives and beliefs on display within the
scientific community in which we try to function as full members. And all
of those I mentioned (I hope also including me) are very well equipped "to
address or change the cultural stereotypes regarding science and faith,"
unlike those whom Biola is apparently trying to enlist.

On the other hand, there is also another group, which includes friends like
fellow council member Walter Bradley, Steve Meyer, Bill Dembski, Bob Newman,
and John Bloom (these latter 3 people direct the 3 programs above). They
(if I may use the word only to indicate that I am not including myself in
this group, which I am still trying to describe in fair and appropriate
ways) are less accepting of the methods of the larger, highly secular
scientific community. That is reflected, to my eyes, by the use of the word
"naturalists" in the first paragraph quoted from the Biola program
description. Here my sense is that it means "metaphysical and
methodological naturalists," though I hope that if my reading is wrong one
of my friends will correct me. In their view, "we" (see above) have made
inappropriate concessions to metaphysical naturalism by accepting
methodological naturalism on topics related to origins (all words in this
sentence need to be read in the order given if my meaning is to be
accurately conveyed, and none must be omitted or the precise point will not
be understood). "They" for their part believe that their proper Christian
vocation as scientists is to challenge the reigning paradigm of naturalism.
I don't see them as rejecting efforts to be salt and light, but I do see
them holding a different understanding of what that entails.

What *I* think we need is a place where *both* schools of thought can come
into regular contact, both formal and informal contact, a place where
students are exposed very seriously to ideas from both camps, *by advocates
of those ideas*. To the best of my knowledge, there presently is no such
place. This list *could* perhaps be that place, if it were more hospitable
to IDs, or a place like Biola *could* perhaps be such a place, if it would
hire a few people like "us." Presently only something like the occasional
ASA meeting (some meetings have this, others don't) is such a place, but not
always and always only for a brief instant in time not on a continued,
ongoing basis. I wish I were wrong about this, but I do not think that I
am.

Ted
Received on Wed Apr 5 14:08:01 2006