brent

Unit 7: Science &

Religion



Brent Royuk

Sci-202

Concordia University

Science and Truth

(from Unit 1)









Does science find truth?

• Are facts true?

• Are laws true?

• Are theories true?

Science and Truth

• Even though theoretical knowledge is

provisional, it can still be certain, or at least

pretty darn certain.

– Does the earth really go around the sun?

– Do atoms really exist?

– Is genetic information really encoded in DNA?

– Does continental drift really occur?

– Is the earth really 4.5 billion years old?

– Are humans and chimpanzees really descended

from common ancestors?

– Is space really 10 or 11-dimensional, with 6 or 7 of

the dimensions compactified?

• These answers are all of the provisional,

probabilistic, what-have-you-done-for-me-

lately variety.

God and Truth

• How do we determine truth in

religion?

• Scripture  Revelation

• Why do we ultimately trust the

Bible as the revealed Word of

God?

• Faith

• How do revealed truths compare

to scientific truths?

• Truth vs. truth

God and Truth

• Does God really exist?

• Did God really create the universe?

• Was Jesus really born to a virgin

mother?

• Are we really born sinful?

• Did Jesus really save us by dying on a

cross?

• Are we really going to live forever in

heaven after we die?

truth vs. Truth



• Empirical vs. Revelatory

• Provisional vs. Absolute

• Tentative vs. Eternal

• Skepticism vs. Faith

truth vs. Truth

• So how do the two truths relate

to each other?

• Truth is more important than

truth, right?

• Can Truth inform truth?

• Does Truth trump truth?

• Can truth change Truth?

S&R Models

• Let’s make a catalog of approaches



• We should try to:



1. Be fairly comprehensive.

2. Include perspectives that people

actually have.

S&R Models

Ian Barbour, Religion and Science, 1997.



Four Ways of Relating:





1. Conflict 

2. Independence  



3. Dialogue 



4. Integration 



(Arrow symbols idea from Daniel Johnson)

S&R Models









Massimo Pigliucci

S&R Models

Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.

Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith:





1. Natural Theology

• Science Demands Christian Theology

2. Compartmentalism

• Science and Christian Theology are

Unrelated

3. Bible-Only

• Christian Theology in Spite of Science

4. Science-Only

• Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology

5. Scientific Theology

• Science Redefines Christian Theology

6. Complementarity

7. New Synthesis

S&R Models

Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.

Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith:





1. Natural Theology

• Science Demands Christian Theology

2. Compartmentalism

• Science and Christian Theology are

Unrelated

3. Bible-Only

• Christian Theology in Spite of Science

4. Science-Only

• Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology

5. Scientific Theology

• Science Redefines Christian Theology

6. Complementarity

7. New Synthesis

S&R Models

S&R Models

Let’s look more closely at the five main

boxes:



1. Naturalism

2. Theistic Science

3. Open Science (Qualified Agreement)

4. Compartmentalism (Independence)

5. Complementarity

Naturalism

• The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be --

Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

• The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins

• cf William Paley’s Watchmaker Hypothesis

• …we have a prior commitment, a commitment to

materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions

of science somehow compel us to accept a material

explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the

contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to

material causes to create an apparatus of investigation

and a set of concepts that produce material

explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter

how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that

materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine

Foot in the door. --Richard Lewontin

• Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such

an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not

naturalistic. --Scott C. Todd

• Any thoughts?

Theistic Science

• In its broadest sense, theistic science is

rooted in the idea that Christians ought to

consult all they know or have reason to

believe when forming and testing

hypotheses, when explaining things in

science, and when evaluating the plausibility

of various scientific hypotheses.

--J. P. Moreland

• It is my contention that recognizing the Bible

as a reliable source of information for the

conduct of science is essential for an

effective use of resources and for correct

results. --Larry Vardiman, ICR

Theistic Science

• No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can

be allowed to take precedence over the clear

statements and necessary inferences of

Scripture. --Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology

• A number of Christian scholars reject theistic

science and advocate what is sometimes called

methodological naturalism, which is basically the

idea that theological concepts like God or direct

acts of God are not properly part of natural

science. Thus, theistic science is fundamentally

misguided because it has a faulty philosophy of

science and an improper view of how science and

theology should be integrated. --J.P. Moreland

• Comments?

Open Science

• Open and Closed: What is the difference? The most

common type of non-open science is "closed" by

methodological naturalism (MN), a proposal to restrict

the freedom of scientists by requiring that they include

only natural causes in their theories. The difference

between science that is open and closed is the difference

in responding to a question: Has the history of the

universe included both natural and non-natural causes?

In an open science (liberated from MN) this question can

be evaluated based on scientific evidence; a scientist

begins with MN, but is flexible and is willing to be

persuaded by evidence and logic. In a closed science

(restricted by MN), evidence and logic are not the

determining factors because the inevitable conclusion —

no matter what is being studied, or what is the evidence

— must be that "it happened by natural process.‖

--Craig Rusbult

• Comments?

Compartmentalism/

Independence

• The Two Realms View: Propositions, theories or methodologies in

theology and another discipline may involve two distinct,

nonoverlapping areas of investigation. For example, debates about

angels or the extent of the atonement have little to do with organic

chemistry. Similarly, it is of little interest to theology whether a

methane molecule contains three or four hydrogen atoms. --J.P.

Moreland

• Stephen Jay Gould and the NOMA Principle (Non-Overlapping

MAgisteria):

• Each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of

teaching authority– and these magisteria do not overlap… The

net of science covers the empirical universe; what it is made of

(fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of

religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.

• Hoimar von Ditfurth writes ―To this day science is by definition the

attempt to see how far man and nature can be explained without

recourse to miracles.‖ This is not a statement of materialist

philosophy. This is an explanation of the rules of the game. The

rules are well understood. The game has been a highly successful

one in the past and continues successful today. Playing the game

according to the rules does not make one an atheist. --Jean Pond

Compartmentalism/

Independence

For the origin of the universe the current consensus in cosmology and

physics is that the big bang theory accounts best for the observational

data we now have and is supported by excellent and straightforward

evidence, including the (approximately) 2.7 degree Kelvin cosmic

background radiation. The age of the universe, although still under

discussion, seems to be within the ten to twenty billion year range.



Such an ancient universe is rejected by young-earth creationists on

biblical grounds. On the other hand, old-earth creationists and others, as

discussed earlier, feel that it is supported biblically and, in fact, that the

big bang is evidence for the existence of God.



For the adherent to NOMA, of course, the Bible neither supports nor

refutes the big bang, or vice-versa. We are happy to accept the

cosmological knowledge that the big bang offers, but we recognize that

(as a scientific theory) it is subject to revision. We may find, personally,

that the big bang fits well (or does not fit well) with our overall

worldview, including our idea of what is aesthetically pleasing in nature.

If we are Christians, we do not worry about it too much one way or the

other. --Jean Pond

Compartmentalism/

Independence

• I find her [Jean Pond’s] view of scripture and science

(along with NOMA) to be an elaborate cop-out that gives

total precedence to science at every point in the

discussion carrying any significance for discovering

physical reality. Pond (and NOMA) seem to overlook the

turbulent nature of scientific theories throughout history

while discounting the possibility that the Bible has a

divine author capable of giving a general but accurate

description of physical reality that science is yet to fully

discover. --Roy Massie

• Independence is a way of resolving the conflict by

affirming separate spheres of validity for science and

religion, with a demilitarized if fuzzy boundary… Neo-

orthodox religion is comfortable with this resolution, and

most working scientists are also quite happy with this

pragmatic approach. Lutherans may feel at home here,

seeing this as a version of Luther's "two kingdoms," and

there is the air of Copenhagen and Bohr's

complementarity about it. --Daniel Johnson

• Strengths and Weaknesses?

Complementarity

• Science and faith have different methodologies, but they are

complementary, not contradictory; a faith without reason is as

stultifying as a reason without faith. --R. J. Berry

• If to the request ―Describe an apple for me,‖ from one who has

never seen an apple, I reply ― An apple is usually red like a

cherry, juicy like a peach, and firm like a pear,‖ I have used

three similes. Each gives a partial insight into the reality of an

apple but no one separately, or even all three together, gives a

totally accurate description of an apple. By knowing all three

similes I know more about an apple than by knowing only one

or two of them. If to these similes I add, ―An apple is like a

Japanese persimmon except that its inside is white rather than

pink,‖ I would know still more about an apple, while still not

knowing exactly what an apple is. Such similar descriptions

could be multiplied many times over, giving a greater and

greater awareness of what an apple is, but never converging on

a totally accurate statement of what an apple is. Descriptions

that give partial insights (with limited accuracy, exactness, or

correspondence with reality) may be said to be complementary.

--Richard Bube

Complementarity

• Paul Dirac invented something called quantum field theory which

is fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. I

can't believe Dirac's ability to invent that theory, or Einstein's

ability to invent the general theory of relativity, is a sort of spin-

off from our ancestors having to dodge sabre-toothed tigers. It

seems to me that something much more profound, much more

mysterious is going on. I would like to understand why the

reason within and the reason without fit together at a deep level.

Religious belief provides me with a entirely rational and entirely

satisfying explanation of that fact. It says that the reason within

and the reason without have a common origin in this deeper

rationality which is the reason of the Creator, whose will is the

ground both of my mental and my physical experience. That's

for me an illustration of theology's power to answer a question,

namely the intelligibility of the world, that arises from science

but goes beyond science's unaided power to answer. Remember,

science simply assumes the intelligibility of the world. Theology

can take that striking fact and make it profoundly

comprehensible. --John Polkinghorne

Complementarity

• They [S&R] ask different questions: in the one case,

how things happen, by what process?; in the other, why

things happen, to what purpose? Though these are two

different questions, yet, the ways we answer them must

bear some consonant relationship to each other. If I

assure you that my purpose is to create a beautiful

garden and then I tell you that how I am going to do so

is by covering the ground with six inches of green

concrete, you will rightly doubt the genuineness of my

intentions. The fact that we now know that the universe

did not spring into being ready made a few thousand

years ago but that it has evolved over a period of fifteen

billion years from its fiery origin in the Big Bang, does

not abolish Christian talk of the world as God's creation,

but it certainly modifies certain aspects of that

discourse. --John Polkinghorne

• Any thoughts?

Creation vs. Evolution

A Historical Introduction



• God of the Gaps

• If science has a gap in its

knowledge, one can explain the

mystery with God.

• And even use the gap as evidence of

God.

• So God occupies gaps in scientific

knowledge.

• Problem: As the gaps shrink, so

does God.

Varieties of Creationism: A List

• Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

• Scientific Creationism: The ICR and the

CRS

• Creationist Evangelism: AIG

• The Omphalos Hypothesis (uncommon)

• Old Earth Creationism (OEC)

• Day-Age (uncommon)

• Gap or Ruin & Restoration (uncommon)

• Progressive Creationism (Hugh Ross)

• Intelligent Design

• Evolutionary Creationism

• Theistic Evolution

Surveying Creationism

• Creationist Interpretations of Genesis

• Reproduced from Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists

The Omphalos Hypothesis

• OMPHALOS: An Attempt to Untie the

Geological Knot by Phillip Henry Gosse, 1857

• ―Omphalos‖ means ―navel‖

• Appearance of age: navels, tree rings,

starlight

• Publication met with derision and

indifference, faded from history

• Chief argument against: God does not lie

• Invincible and untestable

• Anecdotally, I’d say this is a strong folk-

creationist variant in the LCMS

Progressive Creationism

Sometimes people refer to this perspective as ―Rossism‖

after Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe



Characteristics

• Accepts much of modern physical science, including

Big Bang ~16 billion years ago

• Evidentialist approach: science confirms the Bible

• Rejects evolutionary biology, saying God created the

kinds of animals sequentially, producing the fossil

record

• God created hominid creatures several million years

before Adam & Eve, in agreement with conventional

paleontology

Young Earth Creationism

• Recent (special, fiat) creation, 6000-10000 years ago

• Creation occurred during six 24-hour days

• Life was created ―each after their kind,‖ which rules out

evolutionary species creation (macroevolution)

• Most YECers accept microevolutionary changes at or below the

species level (which can be observed)

• Noah’s flood was worldwide, destroying all life except what

was on the ark, causing catastrophic geological changes and

creating the fossil record

• Argues for catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism

• Great decrease in life expectancy after the flood could have

been a result of inbreeding or loss a vapor canopy (the

canopy theory) that made the atmosphere into a big

hyperbaric oxygen chamber and blocked harmful UV

radiation.

• There are many varieties of YEC, especially since Biblical

interpretation is involved as well as science.

• 1997 Gallup poll: 5% of US scientists are YECs

• Is it scientific creationism?

YEC Example

THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY

DANNY R. FAULKNER, ICR, 1998

Among creationists there is much disagreement about the age of the earth and the age of the universe.

Most opinions can be classified into one of three groups. One group is the belief that both the earth and

the universe were created during the literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago. That is the

position of the Institute for Creation Research and most members of the Creation Research Society (CRS).

A second opinion is that while the earth and all that is on it were created a few thousand years ago, most

of the universe was created in the distant past of "in the beginning" of Genesis 1:1. A careful reading of

the statement of belief of the CRS reveals that this belief is compatible with that statement. The third

possibility is that both the earth and the universe are quite old, in general agreement with what most of

modern science claims to be the ages. That position is difficult to reconcile with the CRS statement. The

many writings of Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb have addressed this issue and have argued that

the first opinion is the correct one. This author is in agreement with that position, and for the purposes of

this paper, that is the definition of the creation model.



The creation was only the first of three major events that have affected the world. The second event was

the fall recorded in Genesis chapter 3. The fall had very strong spiritual implications (the introduction of

sin, the need for salvation), but was also accompanied by physical consequences, such as death, the

cursing of the ground, and the groaning of the whole world as recorded in Romans 8:22. There is some

debate among creationists as to what the full effects of this fall upon the world were. For instance, many

suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may not have been operating in its fullness before the

fall [57]. The third major event was the world wide flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8. Being one year

in duration, the catastrophic flood must have had a profound effect not only upon life, but the shape of

the earth's surface itself. There is also some discussion among creationists about how much affect that

the flood had upon the rest of the universe.



What modern science has to say about the origin and history of the world has caused many to dismiss

these three events. On the other hand creation scientists take the Biblical account seriously, and so

accept these events as real and have attempted to reexamine the world for evidence for those events.

Criticisms of YEC

Christian Opponents



Christians who object to YEC reject its metaphysical assumptions (as we’ll see with

ID), but they also criticize its science.



―DWISE1‖ has a website where he argues that:

1.creationists do teach that their faith would be falsified if evolution and other

scientific findings are true,

2.that many Christians have lost or nearly lost their faith because of creation

science, and

3.that many people are driven away from Christianity because of creation science.



―Since then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have traveled the

same path as I have. One thing that is always agreed upon is the damage young-

earth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they have seen fall away.

We have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth interpretation and

when the facts of nature become inescapable - our faith becomes shattered! My

pastor was wrong, the opposite was the case. If "R" had been offered the truth from

the beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through.

When "R" could no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only

option left for him was to deny the Bible. How many others have been disheartened

in like manner?‖ --Ed, from his site Creation, Evolution and Adam, Genesis, the

Flood

Intelligent Design

• Tends to have an open philosophy of science but not a theistic

view: Neo-Creationist

• ―What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design begins with the

observation that intelligent causes can do things which undirected

natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place

scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as

meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful

arrangement requires an intelligent cause… Its fundamental claim

is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex,

information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are

empirically detectable… Intelligent Design presupposes neither a

creator nor miracles. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist…

It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders

Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from

the design arguments of philosophers, or what has traditionally

been called "natural theology…" Intelligent Design entails that

naturalism in all forms be rejected. Metaphysical naturalism, the

view that undirected natural causes wholly govern the world, is to

be rejected because it is false. Methodological naturalism, the view

that for the sake of science, scientific explanation ought never

exceed undirected natural causes, is to be rejected because it

stifles inquiry.‖ --William Dembski

Intelligent Design

Four Arguments from ID



1. Irreducible Complexity

• Michael Behe, the mousetrap example

2. Complex Specified Information

• William Dembski, the alphabet example

3. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

• The universe has characteristics that allow life to exist,

including the value of many physical constants, the strength of

nuclear forces, etc. If any of these values were different by a

small amount, life would be impossible. Taken together, these

circumstances are highly improbable and suggest the existence

of a designer.

4. Evolutionists argue by assumption

• If God is excluded from any possible manifestation with the

physical world, of course you’ll end up with something that

looks like Darwinism. This elevates the theory to more of a

belief system, that has found its way into all the sciences, often

inappropriately.

Intelligent Design

Phillip Johnson: Excerpt from Reason in the Balance: The Case Against

Naturalism in Science, Law & Education



Naturalism in the Academy



The domination of naturalism over intellectual life is not affected by the fact

that some religious believers and active churchgoers hold prestigious

academic appointments. With very few exceptions, these believers maintain

their respectability by tacitly accepting the naturalistic rules that define

rationality in the universities. They explicitly or implicitly concede that their

theism is a matter of "faith" and agree to leave the realm of "reason" to the

agnostics. This is true in every field of study, but especially so in natural

science, the discipline that has the authority to describe physical reality for all

the others. A biologist may believe in God on Sundays, but he or she had

better not bring that belief to the laboratory on Monday with the idea that it

has any bearing on the nature or origin of living organisms. For professional

purposes, atheistic and theistic biologists alike must assume that nature is all

there is.



Natural science is thus based on naturalism. What a science based on

naturalism tells us, not surprisingly, is that naturalism is true. Because of the

authority of science, the assumption that naturalism is true dominates all the

disciplines of the university.

Criticisms of ID

The Chicken or Egg Question



Do the scientific ideas of IDers flow from their

Christian faith, or are they truly empirical?



It is… possible that some un-religious scientist

might become convinced, on scientific evidence,

of the existence of Intelligent Design, while

remaining perfectly open minded about any of

the truths of religion. When that scientist shows

up, I shall begin to take Intelligent Design

seriously. --John Derbyshire

Criticisms of ID

Some Christians oppose ID on the grounds of MN.



Intelligent Design supposes that supernatural forces have

crafted the world as we see it. Supernatural forces are

simply not within the scope of science. Science necessarily

only concerns itself with natural phenomena and natural

causes. Supernatural causes are not testable,

quantifiable, or qualifiable. They are simply not the scope

of science. ID is unscience. Those proponents of ID are

not simply insisting on better science. They are insisting

on being antithetical to science and sitting down at the

science table. Science cannot and should not concern

itself with causes that it cannot empirically demonstrate or

test. It should make no assertion that cannot be shown to

be false by another scientist using the scientific method. -

-anonymous email blog post

Criticisms of ID

Objections are also raised that ID is just a modern version of

the God of the Gaps argument.



ID theory posits that certain features of the natural world

CAN ONLY be explained by the active intervention of a

designing intelligence. Since the entire history of science

displays innumerable instances of hitherto inexplicable

phenomena yielding to natural explanations (and, in fact,

innumerable instances of "intelligent design" notions to

explain natural phenomena being scrapped when more

obvious natural explanations were worked out), the whole ID

outlook has very little appeal to well-informed scientists. A

scientist who knows his history sees the region of

understanding as a gradually enlarging circle of light in a

general darkness. If someone comes along and tells him:

"This particular region of darkness HERE will never be

illuminated by methods like yours," then he is naturally

skeptical. "How can you possibly know that?" he will say,

very reasonably.

--John Derbyshire

Criticisms of ID

Another objection is that if ID is correct, humans can be led to a

belief in the existence of God through empirical means, which, in

the opinion of some, is contrary to scripture.



If Luther is right, if the cross is where we really see what God is

like, then we should expect that God’s actions in the world bear

the mark of the cross… Just as the Son of God limited himself by

taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action

in the world to be in accord with rational laws which God has

chosen… A theology of the cross then suggests that, contrary to

the belief of ID advocates, methodological naturalism is

appropriate for natural science, which is not to invoke God as an

explanation for phenomena… But this God does not compel the

belief of skeptics by leaving puzzles in creation which science

can’t solve. The mark God has placed on creation is both more

stark and more subtle. ―An evil and adulterous generation asks

for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of

Jonah‖ (Matthew 16:4 NRSV). --George Murphy

ID in Schools

• The creation/evolution in schools syllogism:

If creationism is religion it should not be

taught in public schools.

• If you buy the syllogism, theistic creationism

is out.

– U.S. Supreme Court, 1987: Edwards v. Aguillard

– ―...Because the primary purpose of the

Creationism Act is to advance a particular

religious belief, the Act endorses religion in

violation of the First Amendment.‖

• The question then becomes ―Is ID religious?‖

– U.S. District Court, 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover

Area School District

– "We have concluded that Intelligent Design is

not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot

uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus

religious antecedents."

Evolutionary Creationism

or



Theistic Evolution

• Is there a difference?

– Theistic evolution implies more of a deistic

approach, while Evolutionary Creationism implies

more of an active role for God in the world.

Proponents of these points of view often wrestle

with terminology.

– E.g., Howard Van Till refers to his position as the

fully gifted creation perspective.

• ―a vision that recognizes the entire universe as a

creation that has, by God’s unbounded generosity and

unfathomable creativity, been given all of the

capabilities for self-organization and transformation

necessary to make possible something as humanly

incomprehensible as unbroken evolutionary

development.‖ --Howard Van Till

Evolutionary Creationism

or



Theistic Evolution

From theisticevolution.org:



―Why have some of you not heard this before now?



• Not exactly preaching material.



• Too controversial to be printed in Sunday School material.



• Christian professors who would be most qualified to write

and/or teach on the subject are in fear of their jobs…



• Many Christian colleges and seminaries rely on private

donations for funding. Thus, they prefer that their professors

not teach anything that might lead to donor disenchantment.



• Fundamentalists accuse the viewpoint of being liberal

theology--thus, making this an unpopular view…‖

Evolutionary Creationism

or



Theistic Evolution

Christian Opponents



• Creationists disagree for obvious reasons

• Too deistic

– God is portrayed as being more active in the Bible

• ―He makes grass grow for the cattle‖ Ps. 104:14

• ―You bring darkness, it becomes night‖ Ps. 104:20

• ―He covers the sky with clouds‖ Ps. 147:8

• Evolution, being naturalistic, is fundamentally incompatible with the

Christian faith

– The road of compromise looks attractive at first, but long

experience has proved it to be a one-way street. The

evolutionists at the end of the road are never satisfied until

their opponents travel all the way to the atheistic void at its

end. --Henry Morris

– Many aspects of evolutionary theory are directly contradictory to God’s

Word. Evolution cannot be ―baptized‖ to make it compatible with the

Christian faith. --A.L. Barry

The LCMS and Creationism

From The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark A. Noll



Modern creationism arose, by contrast, from the efforts of earnest

Seventh-day Adventists who wanted to show that the sacred writings of

Adventist-founder Ellen G. White (who made much of a recent earth and

the Noachian deluge) could provide a framework for studying the history

of the earth. Especially important for this purpose was the Adventist

theorist George McCready Price (1870-1963), who published a string of

creationist works culminating in 1923 with The New Geology. That book

argued that a "simple" or "literal" reading of early Genesis showed that

God had created the world six to eight thousand years ago and had used

the Flood to construct the planet's geological past. Price, an armchair

geologist with little formal training and almost no field experience,

demonstrated how a person with such a belief could reconstruct natural

history in order to question traditional understandings of the geological

column and apparent indications for an ancient earth. Price's ideas were

never taken seriously by practicing geologists, and they also had little

impact outside of Adventist circles. One exception was the Lutheran

Church—Missouri Synod, where a few energized critics of the modern

world found Price's biblical literalism convincing, despite the fact that on

almost every other religious question the Missouri Synod was about as

far removed from Seventh-day Adventism as it was possible to be.

The LCMS and Creationism

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, 1932



Of Creation



We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the

space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by

His almighty creative word, and in six days. We reject every doctrine which denies

or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture. In our days it is denied or

limited by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to science, that the world came

into existence through a process of evolution; that is, that it has, in immense

periods of time, developed more or less out of itself. Since no man was present

when it pleased God to create the world, we must look for a reliable account of

creation to God's own record, found in God's own book, the Bible. We accept God's

own record with full confidence and confess with Luther's Catechism: "I believe that

God has made me and all creatures."



Of Man and of Sin



We teach that the first man was not brutelike nor merely capable of intellectual

development, but that God created man in His own image, Gen. 1:26, 27; Eph.

4:24; Col. 3:10

The LCMS and Creationism

1967 Convention Proceedings



Whereas, Scripture teaches and the Lutheran confessions affirm

that God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in

6 days by a series of creative acts (Gen. 1; Ex. 20:11; John 1:3;

Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; cf. Large Catechism 2, 11-16; FC Ep. I,

2,4).



Whereas, The Scriptures teach and the Lutheran Confessions

affirm that Adam and Eve were real, historical human beings, the

first two people in the world (Gen. 2; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor.

15:45-47; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; cf. FC Ep I, 4; SD I, 9, 27; Ap XII,

55), created in God's image with body and soul "pure, good, and

holy" (FC SD, II, 27).

The LCMS and Creationism

A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles, 1972



We believe, teach, and confess that God, by the almighty power

of His Word, created all things. We also believe that man, as the

principal creature of God, was specially created in the image of

God, that is, in a state of righteousness, innocence, and

blessedness. We affirm that Adam and Eve were real historical

human beings, the first two people in the world, and that their

fall was a historical occurrence which brought sin into the world

so that "since the fall of Adam all men who are propagated

according to nature are born in sin" (AC, II, 1).



We therefore reject the following:



The notion that man did not come into being through the direct

creative action of God, but through a process of evolution from

lower forms of life which in turn developed from matter that is

either eternal, autonomous, or self-generating.

The LCMS and Creationism

From The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers



1929 survey: ―Do you believe that the creation of the world occurred in

the manner and time recorded in Genesis?‖

Lutheran 89%

Baptist 63%

Evangelical 62%

Presbyterian 35%

Methodist 24%

Congregational 12%

Episcopalian 11%

Other 60%





Alfred M. Rehwinkel The Flood (1951)

John W. Klotz Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (1955)

Paul A. Zimmerman, ed. Darwin, Evolution, and Creation (1959)

President A. L. Barry What About Creation and Evolution (2000)

Erich A. Von Fange In Search of the Genesis World: Debunking the

Evolution Myth (2006)

The LCMS and Creationism

To Commend Preaching and Teaching Creation



Resolution 2-08A, Adopted at the 2004 Synodical Convention



WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that God is the creator of all that exists and is therefore the

author and giver of life; and



WHEREAS, The hypotheses of macro, organic, and Darwinian evolution, including theistic

evolution or any other model denying special, immediate and miraculous creation, undercut this

support for the honoring of life as a gift of God; and



WHEREAS, Any teaching that advocates the transition from one species to another, as opposed to

maintaining the distinction of species ―according to their kinds‖ (Genesis, Chapter 1), rejects the

clear teaching of Scripture; and



WHEREAS, It is the church’s duty to produce followers of Christ who not only know the

fundamentals of the Christian faith, but also are ―prepared to give an answer… for the hope that

you have‖ (1 Pet. 3:15); therefore be it



Resolved, That all educational agencies and institutions of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod

including early childhood programs, elementary schools, high schools, colleges, universities and

seminaries continue to teach creation from the Biblical perspective; and be it further



Resolved, That no educational agency or institution of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod

tolerate any teaching that contradicts the special, immediate, and miraculous creation by God,

Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as an explanation for the origin of the universe; and be it further



Resolved, That the Synod’s educational agencies and institutions properly distinguish between

micro and macro evolution and affirm the scriptural revelation that God has created all species

―according to their kinds‖; and be it finally



Resolved, that The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod in convention remind its pastors and

teachers to increase emphasis to the doctrine of God as the creator and author of life in their

preaching and teaching.

Some Final Thoughts

• Evolution is ―just a theory.‖

• Speculative Theology: Theology based on

human philosophy rather than God's 
self-

revelation.

• God could have…

• A medical analogy: veritable vs. putative

• ―Luther has been called the Copernicus of

theology while, on the other hand,

Copernicus has been called the Luther of

astronomy.‖ --Donald H. Kobe

• From a student essay: ―I don’t think that I

need to justify my answer because it is what

I believe to be true. It doesn’t matter what

anyone else has to say about it.‖

Paranormal Phenomena



• Paranormal Phenomena are ―any phenomenon that in

one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is

deemed physically possible according to current

scientific assumptions.‖ -Journal of Parapsychology

• A list:



• ESP • Levitation

• Telekinesis • Pyramid Power

• Astrology • Palmistry

• Faith Healing • Ghosts

• UFOs • Scientology

• Dowsing • Plant Perception

• Channeling • Cryptozoology

• Homeopathy • Demonic Possession

• Psychic Surgery • Perpetual Motion

Paranormal Phenomena

• Is any of this stuff real?

• Have any of them been scientifically disproven?

• Is this a faith question or a sight question?

• The scientific approach

• ―Extraordinary claims require extraordinary

evidence.‖ --Carl Sagan

• Scientific facts are observable, verifiable and

reproducible.

• Anecdotes are not evidence.

• Scientific Skepticism

• ―CSICOP members argue that nothing less than the

strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should be

accepted as convincing. Such standards include well-

designed and controlled scientific experiments published

in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by

independent replication by other researchers.” --Wikipedia

“CSICOP”

Paranormal Phenomena

• The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge from

the JREF

• Christianity and the Paranormal

– Since we Christians believe in some paranormal

things, should we be less skeptical about all

paranormal things?

– Do you think that ―natural‖ paranormal phenomena

(e.g. ESP) conflicts with Christian beliefs? How

about UFOs/alien life?

– How should a Christian approach Satanic cult

conspiracy theories? Which tools do you use?

• Randi on Geller:

– http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html#i9