Faith and Science

The writer Mary Doria Russell has said,

To me, religion seems very much like music. No one would argue that music is the opposite of science. No one would expect a scientist to reject music, simply because it is not a collection of empirical facts organized into a body of theory that generates testable hypotheses. No one would ask if music is scientifically accurate or if music is less true than science. Those kinds of comparisons are meaningless…. 

When I hear arguments about which is truer, religion or science, the wrangling seems pointless to me. It's like a baseball team suddenly leaving the ball field, charging into an art gallery, and yelling, "You're not playing baseball!"  To which the only answer could be, "Well, uh, no." Or say a bunch of art historians accuse the ball team, "You're not studying art!"  Well, duh ... They are different activities, with different rules and aims. Baseball players can be interested in art history; art historians can be baseball fans—these are simply not mutually exclusive. But they are different…. 

When you drop a big rock, it doesn't take faith to believe that it's going to be pulled toward the center of the earth, and you'd better move your foot out of its way. If the existence of God, and the correctness of a particular theological description of God were like that, then religion would stop being about faith. 

- An interview with Mary Doria Russell

Christ and the Cosmos

This past week I spent three days with 300 other people discussing Science and Faith, Evolutionary Creation, Theology, and how we understand our Creator God in the light of recent scientific discoveries. I was in Houston at the BioLogos 2017 Conference. This conference draws speakers and attenders from a variety of fields. We had keynote speakers from the fields of astronomy, molecular genetics, New Testament theology, Old Testament theology, sociology, particle physics, pastoral care, and engineering. There were participants from each of those disciplines plus, virology, microbiology, Christian education, chemistry, psychology, journalism, aero-space science, and many others. I met a young woman about the age of my daughters who was there because she wanted to have honest discussions about science and faith with her own two daughters. She found a great deal of support from the group and went home with information to help in her faith journey and that of her daughters. One of the foremost astronomers in America admitted that she had never found community because other scientists were suspicious of her faith and Christians were suspicious of her science. A pastor stood up and apologized on behalf of Christians and the crowd gave a warm round of applause.

There were many lighter moments as well. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of Health in the USA, and NT Wright, one of the world’s foremost theologians, sang two song parodies that reminded the audience of the transformation underway in science and Christianity. You can find their guitar playing, singing performance on You-tube (not great quality but it captures an historic moment).

There were many plenary and workshop presentations worthy of discussion at this year’s event, but allow me today, to focus on just one: NT Wright’s lecture entitled, “Christ in the Cosmos.” He affirmed the New Testament understanding that the creation was made through the Word. He referred to Colossians 1:11-15, part of which says that, “all things were created through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus).” Wright reminded his audience that if we stay focused on Jesus, we will be better equipped to understand the nature of creation.

NT Wright pointed out that, in the Gospels, Jesus has much to say about the Kingdom of God, which is the new creation. So, if we better understand the new creation, we will better understand the nature of the first creation. Both creations, new and first, overcome chaos and bring order. The new creation is compared to a mustard seed that starts out small but progresses and grows and becomes a large plant. Now, as I go beyond what NT Wright said, but perhaps capture the sentiment toward which he alluded, no one expects the mustard seed to go from small to large in one leap, we know that it progresses from seed, to sprout, to two-leaf stage, to multi-leaf stage, to small bush, to become the plant into which it is designed to grow.

Wright also spoke of the New Kingdom of God being like a field of wheat which contains weeds or tares which grow along with the wheat. Any farmer knows that the weeds that grow along with the wheat are useless and are merely taking up resources in the field. Yet, as Jesus tells his audience, the farmer in the parable allows the weeds to grow with the wheat and removes them later. This is a picture of the new creation; but is it not also a picture of the first creation? As we consider evolutionary creation, the useless weeds that grow along with the good wheat may be compared to the dead-ends of evolution. Evolution of species from one to another dictates several paths. Some paths lead to a viable species, well-suited to its environment; and some paths lead to extinction and a loss of that genetic line. Could these extinctions, and lost genetic lines, correspond to the tares or weeds? Such speculation and thinking is helpful to our understanding of how God may have initiated the first creation. I say initiated, because the creation, as we know it, is still happening. At the BioLogos 2017 Conference, Deborah Haarsma showed an image of stars presently being born in the universe and reminded us that God is still in the business of creating. There is a continual process that has gone on since Jesus, the Word, started the Big Bang.

Contemporary science gives us evidence that the universe is still being created. The New Kingdom of God is a kingdom that is growing in our midst. Surely, it is not a large step to consider an evolutionary development of our world. We would do well to meditate upon these things and see if they bring about a better understanding of this amazing creation in which we live.

Adam and the Genome

Dennis Venema, Ph.D., gave an exceptional lecture at Ambrose University on Friday, February 3, 2017. The event was sponsored by the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation of Calgary, Ambrose University, and the Templeton Foundation. What follows is a collection of thoughts inspired by the cold, snowy evening, and the warm engaging crowd.

Venema, a geneticist at Trinity Western University, who studies cell surface proteins in the wings of fruit flies, began by referencing the words of Thomas á Kempis, “There is no creature so small and abject, that it representeth not the goodness of God” before leading the crowd of approximately 100 people through a tour of major scientific evidence supporting evolutionary creation. He drew heavily from his recent book, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science.

The book, published by Brazos Press and available on Amazon.ca is co-authored by Scott McKnight and offers both a scientific and theological perspective on Adam and genomic studies. I look forward to reading the contributions of both authors.

In many circles, the “two book” concept of God’s revelation has become a common approach on such issues and so Venema gave only the briefest of comments about how God reveals himself through special revelation in the Bible and through general revelation in nature. Dr. Venema reminded his listeners that, in the context of science, the word “theory” means a well-tested explanatory framework. In contrast, in everyday language, we use the word “theory” to suggest that something is not very reliable. We say, “Well, that is just your theory.”

Venema shared evidence of evolution from such varied sciences as genetics, physiology, fossil records, and embryology. Scientific results from each discipline were brought to bear upon the evidence that points to the fact that the ancestors of whales and other water-dwelling mammals were land-dwelling quadrupeds. After showing further evidence in other systems and other animals, Venema made the statement that evolution is a well-tested explanatory framework, supported by a large body of experimental evidence, that makes accurate predictions; furthermore, evolution has not yet been shown to be false by experimentation; nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution; and evolution is the most foundational theory in biology.

One of the highlights of the lecture was when Venema compared the changes that accrue in a language over time to the physical changes in the population of a species over time. Evolution involves changes in average characteristics in the overall population of a species rather than changes that occur in an individual. He reminded his audience that it is important to stay focussed on populations rather than individuals when assessing evolutionary change. In the same way, language usage in a population changes over time. Venema showed one verse from the Gospel of John in six forms as it changed over time. He started with the West Saxon form (around 849 CE), followed by the Wycliffe version, Tyndale version, 1611 King James Version, the Cambridge King James Version, and lastly the contemporary New International Version of the Bible to show how language changes in a very short period. He made the point that evolutionary change is similar but much slower.

Having established that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, Venema then went on to show evidence that humans are also part of the evolutionary process. Multiple sources of genetic evidence such as chromosomal structure, and pseudogenes in both humans and apes, suggest that 4 to 6 million years ago we shared a common ancestor with Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees). Not only have humans descended from other species, contemporary genetic evidence (population genetics and recombination frequencies) indicates that humans of today descended from a population of approximately 10,000 humans that lived approximately 200,000 years ago.

Of course, all this genetic and scientific evidence poses questions related to our common understandings of Adam, sin, death, and the Fall. Venema pointed out that when we see such apparent conflict, we must consider that this may be due to deficits in our science or deficits in our theology and work to find a way of better understanding both. Venema worked with Scott McKnight in publishing the book Adam and the Genome because he wanted to work with a New Testament scholar as they considered the implications of reading scripture after genetic science. In the theological realm, Venema readily admits that he is not the expert, McKnight does most of the theological analysis.

One of the key questions in the New Testament is our understanding of the Apostle Paul's words when he speaks of Adam. Venema and McKnight’s book suggests that Paul was part of a long history of intertestamental writers who wrote about Adam between the time of Malachi and Matthew and used the concept of Adam for theological arguments. Other important questions will relate to Augustine, and others, also contributed to our contemporary theology of what God means by saying that creation is “good.” McKnight and others are now asking questions about such words. Does “good” mean “perfect?” Does it mean that there was no death? How do we understand sin coming into the world? What does the Bible mean when it speaks of humans made in the image of God? Each of these questions demands new consideration in light of contemporary genetic science. Such vast genetic information has only been available to philosophers, scientists, and theologians for a few decades. Our theology now needs to keep pace with our scientific findings.

Venema referred to Sir Francis Bacon in his lecture as one who readily understood the necessity of studying both “books” of God’s revelation: God’s word and God’s works. I will give the last words of this blog post to Bacon: “To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both. . .”

Dark Quest for Dark Matter

Almost two years ago, I wrote a blog about the effects of gravity and wondered when we would have a better understanding of this powerful force. Earlier this year, we came several steps closer to understanding gravity when researchers at LIGO detected gravitational waves. In my article about gravity, I also commented that “there may be as much as five times more dark matter than ordinary matter in the universe.” Dark matter is non-luminous material that does not interact with radiation (visible light and other portions of the spectrum). At least, that was the accepted understanding of dark matter at the time; but that view has been called into question in 2016 by the results of two experiments that failed to detect dark matter despite the elegant systems established to do just that. Now researchers are wondering if dark matter exists at all. This is a great reminder that scientific theories of the universe are ever in flux. What is today accepted as a model for how things work in our universe may, on the basis of a few experiments, be discarded tomorrow. Now, let’s be careful here; let’s not get confused. This does not mean that the scientific method is inaccurate. In fact, this demonstrates that science is a powerful tool for understanding our universe. For, if the method truly works, it will find some theories to be correct and will prove other theories to be incorrect. The fact that these two experiments failed to find dark matter gives us greater confidence in science, even as they cause us to question the existence of dark matter.

So, three experiments in 2016, which all ranked high in the top news stories of the year, show us that there is still much mystery to our universe. They also show us that we can trust in the logic and methodology of science. Gravitational waves are real, and we are uncertain as to the existence of dark matter. What might 2017 teach us?

#touchmysoul

Shia Labeouf’s latest performance art piece is called #touchmysoul and has people talking about the soul. Labeouf invited people to call him at a special telephone number set up for this performance and “touch his soul.” No further information was given. It is an interesting concept. From the perspective of the collective that put together this performance piece, the soul seems to be the seat of emotions. What they are asking for is someone who will make them smile, give them goosebumps, or affect their emotions in some way. So, how does one touch another person’s soul? What is a soul? How do we touch the soul? Dallas Willard had this to say about the soul.

“While the brain has its role in emotions, intellect, and will, and while people’s bodies are essential, we must always remember that the person is the ultimate unit of analysis: you, me. Thought, feeling, action (involving the body, as well as relations to others) are ultimately dimensions of the person. And it is the soul that combines all the dimensions of the person to form one life. It is like a computer system, which runs an entire commercial operation.”[1]

“The soul is one non-physical dimension of the person. A human person is a non-physical (spiritual) entity that has an essential involvement with a particular physical body. The brain, then—a piece of meat that is of more than usual interest—is one part of the embodied dimension of the human person. It too is integrated by the soul into one life, along with all of the dimensions of the person (at least when all is well).”[2]

Augustine, described the soul as "a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body."[3] 

In contemporary thinking, perhaps a helpful metaphor is to think of the soul as the operating system (OS) that organizes the actions and thoughts of a person. Many things will touch or affect the soul but some will affect more than others. We may experience a beautiful piece of music that affects the soul. Poetry, paintings, photography, a well-told story or movie may also touch the soul. Theoretically, if we touch a soul, that soul will be changed forever and will affect the operating system of the person. If the OS is changed, the whole being is changed.

This leads me to want to touch the soul of others. It causes me to ask questions about how I affect others (for good or bad) and causes me to want to have a positive influence on the souls of those around me. If I can “touch a soul” in a good way, I can make that person a better person and ultimately affect the world. What could be grander than that?

---

[1] http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=82

[2] http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=82

[3] The Greatness of the Soul, Augustine.