the harvard ichthus

Scripture and Science – Part I of II: A Paradox

To what extent should science inform our understanding of scripture?

Always and not at all, if we are to believe the pronouncements of most contemporary Evangelical thinkers.  I present as a starting point the following series of short excerpts from a systematic theology by John Feinberg, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (emphasis added):

i) “We should not ignore the data of disciplines such a science, but as evangelicals we must our views insofar as possible on the basis of biblical teaching.”

ii) “Though some might see this issue [i.e. the interpretation of Genesis 1-2] as a test of orthodoxy, so long as one’s views do not clearly contradict biblical teaching on origins one could hold them without compromising evangelicalism.  There is room for charity toward many who hold views that differ with ours.  Having said this, I note that many theories that will be discussed seem to have originated in an attempt to fit Scripture with science.”

iii) “… I don’t think biblical data allow either an atheistic or a theistic evolutionary account.  This judgment is based both on exegetical and theological reasons, but also on a judgment of the scientific case in favor of any form of evolutionism.  This goes against the findings of the contemporary scientific community, but that doesn’t bother me unduly.”

My aim here is not to prove that Feinberg is wrong so much as to point out that his position seems inconsistent.  For how could we more patently “ignore the data of” science than by making no attempt whatsoever to fit Scripture with it?  Feinberg and many other evangelical thinkers, when questioned on this issue, initially present a vision of the interplay between science and theology according to which the two inform each other but Biblical evidence is given the final say.  Yet these very same thinkers would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the current scientific consensus concerning (for example) evolution puts any pressure on Christians to accommodate their views to the data.  Why?

If the answer were that these thinkers take issue with the most basic methodologies of modern empirical science, perhaps we would have no reason to blame them. Their position would be consistent, if almost unintelligibly strange.  But that can’t be the answer, because the same thinkers who so fervently refuse to countenance a single piece of evidence for evolution go on to argue on empirical grounds for the historicity of the resurrection and the traditional authorship of the epistles and a host of other evangelical positions.  Moreover, such thinkers always seem eager to produce evidence that the current scientific consensus on evolution is incorrect; not merely irrelevant, in which case they could happily admit that all evidence points towards an evolutionary explanation of life’s development, but incorrect – scientists have gone wrong in applying their own tools of investigation and endorsed a theory for which there is no good evidence.  Feinberg himself argues extensively that there is no cogent case for evolution; in short, that scientific experts have made silly mistakes.

So it seems like Feinberg and others believe on the one hand that scientific modes of inference are valid (scientists just keep getting things wrong about evolution) and on the other hand that science could never press us to shift our interpretation of scripture.  These two beliefs are inconsistent; to admit empirical grounds for belief is to admit that facts about the world could give us reason to re-evaluate our interpretation of scripture.  As long as we admit empirical grounds for belief, accommodation may not reasonably be regarded (a la Feinberg) as an inherently suspicious theological move.  We must, after all, be open-minded enough to actually weigh the evidence concerning evolution and other contentious scientific theses.

Perhaps my conclusion here seems weak or obvious.  If it does, I couldn’t be happier.  But I think that if we actually take my conclusion seriously, if we honestly weigh the evidence and seek theological consistency, we will have to make serious changes to our traditional evangelical approach to understanding scripture.  And the conclusion that we have become exceedingly narrow-minded in our ill-considered hermeneutical conservatism is neither weak nor obvious.