Jonathan Dudley posted an article at Huffington Post entitled, “Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution“. He states this is in somewhat of response to Al Mohler’s comments to the opposite, that Christian faith instead should embrace a young-earth position as what scripture teaches. Mr. Dudley begins with a few statements that clearly indicate he has a very narrow understanding of the issues related to science and how it relates to theology (or Christianity), and the issues regarding scientific evidence of the age of the universe. He is indoctrinated, and is able to demonstrate that very well.
Mr. Dudley introduces his position by claiming, “anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition”. Let’s set aside the pejorative label “anti-evolutionists”, but note its use. Jonathan misrepresents scientist who have evaluated the data and come to the conclusion that science supports a young universe. He misrepresents the theologians who have studied Scripture and come to the conclusion that scripture clearly teaches a young universe. He misrepresents the Christians who believe the words of Jesus Who clearly claims that the world was created by a special act of creative work that precludes evolution. I am all of these. There are many Christians “out there” who fall under at least one of these. Jonathan’s narrow view and dismissive statement makes reading the rest of his article burdensome.
Mr. Dudley follows up with a fallacious appeal to authority. Not a very good next step. His statement, “As a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, [Christians have] abandoned [Christian tradition].” It is good that Jonathan is pursuing increased education. I applaud his degree from a seminary and his desire to pursue education. Neither the degree nor the pursuit of education make him qualified to address this particular issue. Worse is his attempt to make the pursuit of knowledge some type of essential part of this argument. Compounding the mistake, Jonathan associates Christian tradition with belief that science informs Scripture regarding the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian tradition is that Scripture informs science.
Mr. Dudley’s arguments are filled with errors and missteps. Christians throughout history have valued science, including those of the current age. It is true and tragic that some groups of Christians have made anti-intellectualism a hallmark of their personal spirituality. And, some mainstream evangelicals have wrongly associated study and increasing knowledge with being anti-spiritual. But, neither of these are inclusive of all or even the majority of Christians. Jonathan exasperates his error by treating historic theologians and historic scientists as two divergent groups. This isn’t true. Ancient theologians were often also scientists. Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Mendel, Kepler are a few names to simply begin building this list. Yes, Christians value science. Not because it was a separate way of knowing that included theology. They valued science because it was part of a larger body of knowledge that all pointed to the Creator.
Here we see Mr. Dudley’s fundamental error: That science and theology have always been two separate realms of “knowing”. There are many ways that science and theology may be viewed. Although great philosophers have sought different ways to describe these views of science and religion, they generally can be described as Ian Barbar’s four areas: “conflict”, “independence”, “dialogue”, and “integration”. I personally find Alexander’s restatement of “dialogue” as “complementary”, and “fusion” instead of “integration” as more accurate. Historically, these have all either merged into and then diverged at a later time from the fusion or integration model. In this historical model (from a Western philosophical perspective), science and theology are seen as working hand in hand, with theology as preeminent as the source of truth, and science as one of the tools to understand that truth. Scripture was viewed as the written revelation of true events, true concepts, true ideas and true knowledge that trumped anything humans would develop or derive from any other source – literature, philosophy, science. Mr. Dudley’s failure to comprehend this makes it difficult to treat his views and opinions as much more than uninformed angst.
read on to Part II
Copyright © Why Six Days? (Ronald C. Marks), 2015. All rights reserved.
Why Six Days? 