Five Positions on the Integration of Theology and Science (Pgs. 7-11)

At medieval universities, theology was often called "queen of the sciences." However, in recent times, these two disciplines have rubbed shoulders together often, usually in a negative way.

In their introduction to Three Views on Creation and Evolution, J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds state that Christians should be interested in science because God created us with a mind that can be used to explore the world around it and see how and why it works. However, they have different views of how to fit science into a Christian life.

Some Christians use science to prove the theological ideas that the universe was designed and didn't evolve from chance or a process of natural selection. Others think that science and Christian theology can't mix because of the "evolution problem". A third school states that science has superseded Christianity because it relies on empirical faith whereas Christianity relies on blind faith. For example, the late American philosopher Wilfred Sellars stated, "In the dimension of describing and explaining the world, science is the measure of all things, of what is that it is, and of what is not that is not" (Science, Perception, and Reality 173). In summary, science is the only thing that can explain the existence and origin of the universe. It may even explain the meaning of life...

However, Christians must be prepared to defend their beliefs against modern science and see how their beliefs fit in with the beliefs of the zeitgeist. They can't be afraid to engage in dialogue with modern intellectuals. The purpose of Three Views is to show the beliefs of the three different schools of origins theories: Young Earth (YE), Old Earth (OE), and Theistic Evolution (TE). But before diving into this, Moreland and Reynolds briefly discuss five models for integrating theology and other academic disciplines, especially science.

The first view is Two Realms. This view states that theology is completely separate from every other discipline. For example, infant baptism doesn't matter in quantum physics.

The second is Complementarity View. Science and theology can work together, but they answer different questions. For example, science can deal with the particular (how an eye works?) whereas theology deals with the universal (who or what created an eye?). If one takes this view to its logical conclusion, it can mean that theology and science are both useful, but they must never interact. Some theistic evolutionists use this view to integrate evolution and creation

The third view is Direct Interaction. Science and theology can work together and can either support or go against the other. The theory of evolution can hurt a literal reading of Genesis 1, but the Big Bang theory can also support the Biblical view that the universe had a clear first cause. Many Old Earth and Young Earth creationists hold to this view.

The fourth is the Presuppositional View. Theology can support the presuppositions of science and vice versa. For example, some presuppositions of science (an ordered world with laws) support Christian theology, and some presuppositions of Christian theology (an imperfect world) support presuppositions of science (thermodynamic property of entropy).

The final view is Practical Application.  Theology can help an understanding of other subjects and apply principles of that subject. For example, in psychology, the principle of not provoking children to anger (Eph. 6:4) can help aid psychological principles of family structures and the root causes of anger.

Which view do you hold to or it is a mixture of a few? Next post: It gets controversial... creation vs. evolution!

"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the not-worth-knowing."- Henry L. Mencken

Introduction to New Book Blog: Three Views on Creation and Evolution

Sorry people, but I haven't done much blogging except for the mad man's rant a couple weeks ago. At my college, there has been much debate over which theory of creation is correct and what impact does that have on one's theology as a whole. My Old Testament professor, along with a majority of students at my college, hold to the young Earth view that the world was created in six literal days. I am in a minority and hold to the view that the world was created in six "epochs" (day age theory) because the word yom doesn't always mean literal day in Genesis 1-2, no young Earth creationists have been able to answer how starlight can scientifically travel to the Earth in one 24 hour period, and that there were no "markers" for days and seasons until day four. My girlfriend Kendall once held to the theistic evolution model, but she has since switched over to the young Earth camp, and there are no theistic evolutionists (that I know of) at my college.

The purpose of this blog will be my personal journey through Three Views on Creation and Evolution written by Paul Nelson (Young Earth), John Mark Reynolds (YE), Robert C. Newman (Old Earth/OE), and Howard J. Van Till (Theistic Evolution/TE) with responses from other theologians. I will flesh out the points and arguments made by each theologian and add a short response at the end.

Enjoy! Soli Deo Gloria! Comment down below with your view of the origin of the universe.

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe- the starry heavens above and the moral law within."- Immanuel Kant