Evolution, Creation, Science, Theology, Truth

A spike of attention given recently to a evolution vs. creationism debate between Creation Museum president Ken Ham and Bill Nye “the science guy” made me thankful for my faith tradition, and for the memory of Ian Barbour. More about Barbour in a moment.

The debate, in case you haven’t heard about it, pitted Bill Nye, who advocated the scientific approach of critical thinking and hypothesis testing, against Ken Ham, who advocates finding “answers in Genesis.” Ken Ham believes that the Bible is literally true, without errors of any kind. To him, that means that the universe is around 6,000 years old, and that the earth and all living things (including humans) were created in the span of six days.

One of the issues that I have with “answers in Genesis” is that Ken Ham seems to be asking questions that Genesis was never intended to answer. (A second issue comes later.)

What was missing in the debate were the many voices of faithful Christians and faithful people of other religions who see no conflict between scientific and theological (choose your word…) truth, knowledge, understanding.  This is the tradition in which I was raised, in the United Church of Christ, although certainly not limited to our denomination.

Which brings be to Ian Barbour, professor of science and religion, and member of the United Church of Christ, who passed away last month at the age of 90. In a wonderful obituary from theNew York Times:

He was well known for describing four prevailing views of the relationship between science and religion: that they fundamentally conflict, that they are separate domains, that the complexity of science affirms divine guidance and finally — the approach he preferred — that science and religion should be viewed as being engaged in a constructive dialogue with each other.“This requires humility on both sides,” he wrote. “Scientists have to acknowledge that science does not have all the answers, and theologians have to recognize the changing historical contexts of theological reflection.”

My second issue with the approach that Ken Ham takes is that a focus on Genesis for accurate chronology about the origins of the universe and life actually distracts us from the intention of Genesis. The opening chapter of Genesis is a poetic, liturgical celebration of all that exists. It is meant to evoke wonder and praise, and to assure us of a theological truth, which is repeated at the end of each day of creation. The truth is this: everything that God has created is good. There is no inherent evil. There is no meaningless existence. There is only what has been created by God for good.