"Darwinism, Natural Theology and Moral Values"

(My apologies for the length of this post. As I got into it, it began to take on a life of its own. :)

That was the title of the seminary I attended at Butler University last week. A friend invited me to come hear the first in a series of presentations on Darwinism hosted by Butler's Center for Faith & Vocation.

As was to be expected, the audience was a self-described "NPR audience" with more liberal leanings, and given the setting, the presentations were presented with an anti-conservative, anti-creationist bias. It's always interesting to sit incognito in such settings.

The portion of the evening which was of particular interest to me was the presentation by Dr. Michael Zimmerman, Butler's Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Science. He is the head of The Clergy Letter Project, an open letter undersigned by a variety of clergy challenging school districts to an education philosophy such "that science remain science and that religion remain religion." The Christian version of the letter reads as follows:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

This letter is the original clergy letter, but Dr. Zimmerman also shared a newer letter, specifically addressed to Jewish clergy. For the sake of not making this post any longer than it already is, I'll let you read that letter here, if you'd like to.

After hearing these letters read during the presentation, there seem to be aspects of them which are based on certain assumptions and misinterpretations concerning the conservative Christian position on issues surrounding the origin of the universe. Just a few examples:

"the overwhelming majority [of Christians] do not read the Bible literally..." - This convenient assumption would be disputed by a great majority of Christians who come from a more conservative bent (which, interestingly, are not well represented in the list of the signers of The Clergy Letter).

"To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God...." - This cliched idea pitting faith against reason, as if the two are always mutually exclusive, is just not factual. I've always wondered why the evolutionist crowd automatically assumes that because a person has religious faith, they somehow no longer have the capacity to think rationally. (I would hope my efforts with this blog support the opposite position, that someone coming from a Christian worldview can present rational, credible logic to support a Christian position on various subjects.) Granted, not everyone may agree with the Christian position, or the argumentation, but a belief in the unprovable should not automatically assume irrationality--Just ask anyone who believes that man came from the primordial soup, as it were. None of us was there to witness it, so we rely on the evidence. However, the actual documented evidence is not has prevalent as many scientists would have us believe. But that does not change their belief that it happened. I do not plead insanity on behalf of such scientists, simply that there is room for faith (or whatever you want to call it) for those holding a variety of beliefs, Christian or not.

[From the Jewish Letter] "The Bible...is, however, open to interpretation, with some taking the creation account and other content literally and some preferring a figurative understanding." - This idea of the Bible being taken literally and figuratively is legitimate. In fact, the vast majority of conservative Christians would agree with that statement--in the sense that different types of literature taken on various forms of interpretation. For example, poetic metaphor is not to be taken literally. Nor is the statement, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", to be taken metaphorically.

Likewise, the Bible includes statements which would fall into both the category of literal interpretation ("You shall not murder" - Exodus 20:5) and metaphorical intent ("If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." - Matthew 5:29). The key is trying to determine which parts of the Bible are intended literally and which are intended metaphorically. Confusing the two has serious implications. For example, as I've said in the past, there are people I know who believe passages where Jesus references "hell" are to be taken metaphorically. Is this idea to be interpreted as such, or is it to be taken literally? The reality of hell is one idea in which this question must be answered as definitively as possible.

And there are countless others in Scripture. For example, when it comes to the first two chapters of Genesis, the same thing applies. Is the creation account figurative or literal? The significance of this question is summed up in the first verse of Genesis (and arguably the most important verse in the Bible), "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Is this statement literally true or not? If not, then the Bible is only as authoritative as any other classical work of literature. If it is true, however, then the Bible as God's Word takes on an authority that surpasses that of any mortal being.

And that is the overarching idea that I left the seminar pondering. We tend to interpret the Bible as we think it should be interpreted. So, if we don't like the idea of punishment or personal responsibility, or especially of an idea like "hell", we choose to believe that the Bible must be interpreted in a different way. But, I wonder, what does God think? How does He want us to interpret Scripture? At the end of the day, that is the only question that counts.

Comments

[chris corwin]

"the overwhelming majority [of Christians] do not read the Bible literally..."

you say that this notion would be disputed by a great number of christians, and you'd be right: great numbers of christians would disagree with it -- and they'd still be wrong about the facts.

the OVERWHELMING majority of people who are christians do not read the bible literally. almost all evangelicals in america do.

the latter's numbers are TINY, despite how it feels here in the midwest.

as with almost everything else in life: our own personal experience is just one factor when thinking about such matters.

one must look to the facts before making decisions.

you can go look this up at barna.

[John]

"you say that this notion would be disputed by a great number of christians"

Chris, you conveniently restated my position on this issue inaccurately and then have gone on to reinforce the point I was making. If you'll go back and read the post, I said that the assumption in The Clergy Letter that most Christians do not take the Bible literally "would be disputed by a great majority of Christians *who come from a more conservative bent*" You referenced a majority of evangelicals who take the Bible literally, which is essentially who I was referring to. Those more liberal Christians are more liberal because they often take the Bible literally on a more selective basis.

It is important that we understand what we mean by taking the Bible literally. As I tried to explain in this post, I use that idea in the sense that we take the Bible as it was intended by God to be taken. Those dictates that are given with more literal intent should be taken literally. And conversely, those portions of the Bible which are intended as metaphors should not be taken literally. As I said, "The key is trying to determine which parts of the Bible are intended literally and which are intended metaphorically." That was the main point of this post.

You're right that many people often use their own personal experience to determine whether or not something is true. And while personal experience has some value, personal experience should not outweigh the factual evidence. This is a theme I've written about considerably on the blog.

(Speaking of which, I too was interested to hear your response to RA's query concerning your allegations about FOX News as a news organization. http://thedailydetour.typepad.com/tdd/2008/08/democratic-national-convention-begins.html If you responded to that, I must have missed it.)

[Resident Atheist]

I found that 'overwhelming majority' comment interesting too. The only data I could find from a Gallup poll (link below) said that on this specific topic (evolution vs. creationism) that 45% of the population believed man was created by god in his present form. That means 55% don't believe that. I hardly call 55% an 'overwhelming' majority.

Now if you exclude the 'no gods' and 'no opinions' then that means that only 46% of CHRISTIANS believe in evolution, which is a minority.

I guess these clergy need to brush up on their math instead of studying evolution so much.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

[Christy]

I think a lot of this depends also on your definition of "Christian". I've met many people who call themselves Christians but view Christ's life as a metaphorical example of how we should strive to live rather than as the true story of the son of God. For them, "christianity" is just one of many selections they sample on the spiritual buffet...it's the Oprah effect.

There is a similar logic being applied to the US Constitution right now, too. Some believe it is just a metaphor/guiding principles for how govt. should be organized while others feel it should be strictly interpreted as law.

Without something authoritative--either in Christianity or our govt.--it seems to me it all fades into gray. This vast relativism might well be a harbinger of doom as a cohesive society.

[John]

You're exactly right, Christy. Interestingly, one of the other elements of The Clergy Letter that struck me was their statement, "...virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice..." Any suggestion of authority begs the question of obedience, "Authority comes from what or whom?" "To what or whom are we to be obedient?" Concerning the Bible, the answer would be, "God." And yet, it seems such clergy want it both ways--they suggest allegiance to the authority of God, but abide by that authority only selectively, as they see fit.

As you pointed out, whether it concerns the Bible, the Constitution, or whatever, questions of interpretation are paramount. Otherwise, the idea of authority becomes relative, and the foundation provided by authoritative standards erodes to meaninglessness.

[Resident Atheist]

John, I'm truly confused about your posts. In your first comment you indicate that some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and some metaphorically. Then in your final comment, you lampoon the clergy for attempting to do just that. These seem completely contradictory.

On a side note, don't you think this elaborate game of 'figure out what I really want you to do' is a pretty fallible system for determining who's naughty / nice? It seems like your version of god would have us being the ants under a huge magnifying glass. Do I smell something burning?

[chris corwin]

every one of us uses personal experience to determine what we think is true.

you said, "As I tried to explain in this post, I use that idea in the sense that we take the Bible as it was intended by God to be taken."

to this i say, HOW do we know what it is god intended about the bible?

are you not simply saying that the bible itself claims to be the authority on whether the bible is the authority?

you claim that the bible is god's word, because it says it is.

some of us ask for more merit than that.

but it is without such merit, and so we reject it.

its really simple, actually.

those things in the bible that overlap with what seems to be true and reliable to me are taken as true, and those areas that do not are taken as "not true" -- and where it makes moral edicts, we must look at the entire thing and say whether it has the weight to obey it.

that's why evanglical chirstians allow thier wives to speak in church and wear jewelry -- because those parts of the bible, even taken metaphorically, are "not true".

[John]

RA, in retrospect, I can see how my comments may seem confusing. Sorry about that. Essentially, what I am suggesting is that there is a traditionally accepted understanding of what the Bible says. (By traditional, I mean a agreed-upon interpretation of Scripture passages which corresponds with serious biblical scholarship down through the centuries.) There are also many variations of that traditional interpretations, which are driven as much by contemporary agendas as by responsible scholarship. Study what the Bible says about the issue of homosexuality, for example, and you'll find two major interpretations of the various passages which speak to the issue. The point is that both interpretations cannot both be right--the law of non-contradictions does not allow for it. So, how does someone determine what the Bible has to say on that (or any) subject? There are established methods for answer that critical question.

Anyone who genuinely wants to engage in biblical criticism (meant in the academic sense) and scholarly study of the Bible is more than able to do so. There are established methods of biblical study that highly respected biblical scholars have utilized for centuries.

The reality is that most people are willing to offer an opinion about the Bible and what they think it says, but are unwilling to do the hard work of actually pursuing responsible study of the issue.

An brief example of this from a conversation I had with a skeptic: He was challenging me on questions regarding the canon of Scripture (i.e. How did the books we have in the Bible come to be there? Why were other books excluded? etc...) When I pressed him on where he got his information, he said he read some articles on the internet. I then asked if he had read any of the excellent scholarship by F. F. Bruce on the subject. Not only had he not read any of it, he had not even heard of Dr. Bruce. That, to me, represents an irresponsible approach to the issue.

The point is that the means to study the Bible are out there if people are willing to pursue them. Such is the nature of many issues regarding Christianity. I tend to find G. K. Chesterton's observation in 1910 more and more accurate these days: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."