A sister faith-based university not far from where I live is under attack for teaching evolution in biology classes. Since the issue frequently comes up wherever I go, I thought it might be helpful for me to put a few thoughts on the issue into writing. I begin with a caveat. While I work at a faith-based health science university, I am not an expert in the specific, scientific issues related to the origins of life on this planet. Neither do I have inside information as to what exactly is or is not being taught at the sister institution. So I think it would be wise for me to confine myself to some general principles that I find helpful in making sense of the debate over the origins of life, regardless of the particular instance that triggered this blog.

The relationship of faith to the evidence of science is a very important point of discussion. The field of evidence is so vast and the issues so significant to people of faith that it is unwise to ignore the issue. The unfortunate aspect of the current debate is that once an issue like this becomes politicized, the conversation tends to be controlled by extremists on both sides and those who represent the center are often intimidated into silence. So many may think my addressing the issue at all at this time, when every word may be weighed with hostile intent, is rather stupid. But I write anyway in the hope of encouraging honest, respectful discussion in spite of the stakes. It is at times when courage begins to fail that those who "cannot be bought or sold" must be all the more prepared to speak. But in the process we must not confuse rudeness and disparaging speech with integrity. Genuine integrity must be combined with respect for those who may disagree.

Where is the center in this debate? It seems to me that scientists of faith come to this debate from one of three standpoints. At the risk of oversimplification, let me identify those standpoints as follows. 1) There are those who find the evidence for evolution (in the grand, macro sense) and long ages of life on this earth overwhelming. As a result they seek other than traditional ways of reading the Bible with regard to origins. 2) There are those who find traditional ways of reading the Bible perfectly clear and compelling and therefore put all of their energies into finding flaws in the contemporary scientific consensus. 3) I would see the center to be comprised of scientists of faith who have a high and respectful view of both the Bible and the evidence of science. Such scientists recognize that at this moment there is no easy resolution of the differences that exist between the two bodies of evidence, so they bend all their energies to resolve the issues while maintaining a strong awareness of the limitations of evidence and of human understanding of the evidence.

Moving forward, then, it seems to me that we need to avoid two extremes in the debate. One extreme is taking one’s cue from a faith tradition and assuming that every scientist who disagrees with that viewpoint must be perverse. Most scientists I have met are very open to evidence and discovering the flaws in their own thinking. (That was certainly true at the Banff Conference I attended recently.) To proclaim otherwise destroys one’s own credibility in speaking to the debate. The other extreme is to downgrade or mock the validity of Scripture because straightforward readings of Scripture point to a different view of the world than that of traditional science. Scripture has stood the test of time in so many areas and the last word in science is far from being spoken yet.

That leads me to the subject of the next blog, the need for humility.