"...evangelicals who pursue science in the universities, who are employed as scientific experts for industry and government, or who teach science at the Christian colleges have usually approached their subjects as carefully segregated fields of knowledge rather than with the intent of studying scientific concerns in relation to theology or other spheres of thought" (p. 177)
"For nineteenth century evangelicals, science usually meant "Baconianism," or the belief that strict induction from verified individual facts to more general laws offered the best way to understand the data of any subject." (p. 178)
"Precisely this belief - that properly scrutinized results of the main culture's scientific enterprises should assist biblical interpretation - was the sacrifice offered by the Evangelical mind on the alter of fundamentalist theology" (p. 185)
"Modern creationism arose, by contrast, from the efforts of earnest Seventh Day Adventists who wanted to show that the sacred writings of Adventist founder Ellen G. White (who made much of a recent earth and the Noachian deluge) could provide a framework for studying the history of the earth." (p. 189)
"Reasons for the success of creation science are, by the nature of the case, complex. Doubtless a combination of factors account for what is one of the great innovations of recent Evangelical history - the establishment of an alternative form of science to the form taught by the intellectual establishments of the culture.
... first because of the intuitive belief of many evangelicals that it embodied the simple teachings of scripture.
...the production of influential biology textbooks that not only introduced major contemporary findings but also propounded grandly phrased metaphysical claims about the evolutionary character of the cosmos.
...the widespread resentment against America's self-appointed knowledge elites.
... A biblical literalism, gaining strength since the 1870's, has fueled both the intense concern for human origins and the end times." (p. 193)
"Creationists regularly reaffirm the principles of Baconian science: no speculation without direct empirical proof, no deductions from speculative principles, no science without extensive empirical evidence. The tragedy is that creationists preserve a misguided Baconianism for the Bible and abandon a healthy Baconianism for science." (p. 197)
"For Galileo, as for Bacon and Augustine before him, to think that one could interpret the Bible on scientific questions without employing a dialogue between natural and biblical observations was to guarantee misunderstanding of Scripture." (p. 206)
"The testimony of Augustine, Bacon, Galileo, and Warfield can be summarized by focusing on a concrete example: if the consensus of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that humans have existed on this planet for a very long time, it is foolish for biblical interpreters to say that ""the Bible teaches" the recent creation of human beings. ... It means that, for people today to say they are being loyal to the Bible and to demand belief in a recent creation of humanity as a sign of obedience to Scripture is in fact being unfaithful to the Bible, which, in Psalm 19 and elsewhere, calls upon the followers of God to listen to the speech that God has caused the natural world to speak." (p. 207)
1 comment:
I am very curious about your ability to integrate your scientific conclusions and what appears to be your Christianity. As a Christian who has traveled in fundamentalist circles, taught high school physics for years, and recently read Knoll's book (and appreciated it), I like your blog. How exactly do you integrate your faith and your science?
Post a Comment