Re: On evangelical seminaries, etc., and religion/science

When I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the required classes for my M.A.Th. in Philosophy of Religion path was a course entitled "Philosophy of Religion: Faith and Science", which was a rather popular class. Popular because a lot of students, e.g. myself at the time, had a lot of unresolved issues with the alleged science and creation dilemma.

The course professor, who refused to reveal his personal position on the matter of creation theology, introduced the class to all of the theories on Gen. 1 interpretation. He encouraged us to research the facts and draw our own conclusion(s). Interestingly, for many of us this was our first time to hear of Christian-based views outside of the YEC and Gap theories.

I appreciated this approach for the following reasons:
- it was not an indoctrination class telling us what we should believe
- it promoted academic freedom of allowing us to reach our own conclusion(s)
- it differentiated primary theology (God created) and secondary theology (how God created)
- the prof gave us a bibliography of resources that covered all theories/approaches/views
- the prof distinguished between biblical interpretation issues and scientific data interpretation issues

I wish evangelical colleges and seminaries would all adopt this approach.

-Phil

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
> 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 14:45:05 2006