Science & Christianity: Four Views

Science and Christianity. Are they partners or opponents? Christians have long debated the relationship of science to faith. With the rise of Darwinism, however, the issue took on new significance. Darwinism appeared to undermine the authority of the Bible and the credibility of Christianity by freeing science of the need for a Creator. Rethinking the relationship between science and Christianity quickly became a priority. 

• How does a faithful Christian respond to the pronouncements of contemporary science?
• Is science a help or a hindrance to belief?
• Are science and the Bible in conflict?

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Christians continue to wonder whether faith and science are partners or opponents. In this book six Christian scholars sort through the issues as they present four different views on the relationship of science and Christianity. These include Wayne Frair and Gary D. Patterson for "creationism," Jean Pond for "independence," Stephen C. Meyer for "qualified agreement" and Howard J. Van Till for "partnership." Each contributor responds to the other scholars, noting points of agreement and disagreement. Editor Richard F. Carlson offers an introduction to this contemporary debate as well as a postscript to help us evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each view.

Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

Few have weighed in on the nation's contentious debate over evolution as effectively as Kenneth R. Miller. In Only a Theory, Miller-the highly regarded scientist who offered expert testimony at the 2005 trial over the teaching of evolution in Dover, Pennsylvania-eloquently shows how "Intelligent Design" collapses at the very moment one begins to take it seriously. Miller shows that the attack on evolution is a broader assault on the skepticism and reason that have fueled America's remarkable scientific advances, and offers an encouraging prescription for how we can save the nation's "scientific soul" to which we owe so much.

Evolution, Creation and Intelligent Design

In The Origin of Species, Darwin advanced a scientific explanation of the design of organisms. The adaptations of organisms are outcomes not of chance, but of a process that, over time, causes the gradual accumulation of features beneficial to organisms, whenever these features increase the organisms’ chances of surviving and reproducing. There is “design” in the living world: eyes are designed for seeing, wings for flying, and kidneys for regulating the composition of the blood. The design of organisms comes about not by intelligent design, but by a natural process, which is creative through the interaction of chance and necessity.

Organisms are pervaded by imperfections, dysfunctions, cruelties, and even sadism. The theory of evolution accounts for these mishaps by natural selection, as the outcomes of natural processes, so that they need not be attributed to God’s explicit design.

Francisco Ayala

Creation or Evolution - Do We Have to Choose?

It is often thought that an intrinsic compatibility exists between the ideas of ‘creation’ and Darwinian ‘evolution’. This misunderstanding arises from two main sources. First, since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) evolution has frequently been used for various social, political, religious or anti-religious purposes. These ideological investments are not intrinsic to the theory, which focuses on providing an explanation for the origins of biological diversity, but have the consequence that in the public domain the term ‘evolution’ often has associations incompatible with the idea of ‘creation’. The second main reason for the supposed incompatibility arises from the US anti-Darwinian creationist and Intelligent Design movements. These movements agree with the claims of ultra-Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins that ‘creation’ and ‘evolution’ provide rival accounts for the origins of biological diversity. This lecture will draw on the traditional understandings of ‘creation’ shared by all the Abrahamic faiths to suggest that there is no need to choose between creation and evolution. Instead they provide two different provide complementary narratives for the history of living things on this planet. Both accounts are important if we are to do justice to the complex reality of life.

Denis Alexander