Recently the John Templeton Foundation published a booklet titled, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” The full booklet can also be read online here. It features opinions by 13 well known people from the fields of science, philosophy, and religion. The answers are quite a mixture. Many show the gray areas in the debate. And some represent the extreme “no” and extreme “yes” sides of the debate. Not one of the people represented is a “creationist,” in the sense of a six-day mature earth creationism. (If you do not know the terminology, don’t worry about it.) It is a highly nuanced booklet that shows various possible positions on the inter-relationship between science and religion. Please note that not all the authors are Christian, nor are they all from the USA or Europe.
Unfortunately, the booklet will probably never be either read or studied save in some isolated university-level classes. Secularists in the USA have managed to eliminate subtlety and eliminate classroom debate by using a type of reductionist argument. If anyone does not agree with secular evolution, they must then be a “creationist” or a “Christian” or a “flat-earther.” All three terms are equated. The argument used is a type of syllogism. All creationists are flat-earthers and Christian. If you believe that a power outside space-time had something to do with the universe, then you are a creationist. If you are a creationist, you are therefore a flat-earther and a Christian.
The booklet by Templeton shows that there is significantly more variety than that. In fact, not one of the authors tries to promote Christianity, particularly the one who is Islamic. Some of the authors are anti-religion, of any type. Some of the anti-religion authors point out some of the problems with current scientific theory, while yet insisting that the scientific method is the only way to achieve an approximation of reality. Some of the pro-religion authors are agnostics. Some of the pro-religion authors argue that our classical definitions of God must change. And, yes, some are classical Christian. Not one of them argues against the scientific method.
It is too bad that this type of booklet would be considered something to dangerous to allow into our pre-university classrooms. And, even if allowed, it would be prevented from being discussed in anything other than some type of remote advanced pre-university class. But, that is what we have come to in this (and many other) countries. Discussions of the various ways that people have tried to fit the scientific method into cosmology (or metaphysics or faith or religion) have been forbidden in our pre-university science classes. Only a type of purely secularist scientism is allowed.
The end result, of course, is that religion–meaning belief in any power outside of space-time, see above–is not simply excluded, in the sense of the separation of Church and State, but rather actively taught against. After all, if science and scientific progress always equals a secularist view of science, then, by definition, religion, or metaphysics, is not real.
The odd and sad part is that those who wish to combat a six-day mature earth creationism would actually be better served by fostering a type of Templeton discussion rather than by the complete prohibition that is currently in place. To exclude all viewpoints except a strict secularism only encourages the over-the-top reactions that we have seen in many school districts. When you give students access to more than just a black and white view of reality, you encourage thinking in shades of gray. Thinking in shades of gray helps develop the critical thinking skills that are so necessary in life. And maybe, just maybe, thinking in shades of gray may make our students more able to handle conflict by thinking about alternative resolutions.
Well, what do you know? If we encourage our students to think in shades of gray, we might actually help to foster world peace. It is too bad that our modern educational science establishment thinks only in terms of black and white. Maybe that is why there is such a conflict in the classroom nowadays.
Ok, I’m a year late, but curious about “six-day mature earth creationism”.
I’ve read The Language of God by Francis S Collins. I’ve seen Ben Stein’s movie. General labels don’t fit me. Collins presents a choice he calls Bioslogos, but on first read, I felt it more of a cop-out explanation. I like the “mature earth creationism”. I’ve have tried to describe what I was open to believing as “I believe God was/is quite capable of creating a ‘history’ into every object. Scientific experiments can be accelerated and simulate different environments, so how hard is it for God to create a fossil that follows the very laws of the universe that He created? Did Atheist scientists really expect to carbon date different objects and have nothing “older” than a few thousand years?
I usually get blank looks when I say that. I don’t know if my logic is more Intelligent Design or Mature Earth Creationism.
Keep an eye on http://www.internetmonk.com Soon there will be a post from six of us pastors talking about the Creation. I think that you will find that discussion helpful.
Having said that, please feel free to drop me a line if that post (which should be published in the next week) does not answer your questions.