Christians’ Unnecessary Rejection of Evolution: An Introduction to the Debate (Guest post by David T. Moscrip)

A popular, and often heated, debate that is largely unique to the USA is the issue of origins. Did God create everything in a literal six-day period? Did a random series of events lead to an evolutionary process that brought about everything we see today over millions of years? Often these questions are presented as being in direct conflict with each other.

The contention that Darwinian evolution or any other scientific theory somehow presents a direct challenge to the Christian faith is simply false. A sad side-effect of this conflict is that it has diminished the rich meaning of the biblical creation narrative. Rather than seeking to understand the significance of the first three chapters of Genesis, we have limited their meaning to a solely literal interpretation. Ultimately, this insistence has placed unnecessary hurdles in the path of those seeking the Christian faith. Scientists should not be forced to choose between their faith and their findings or theories, and Christians should not live in fear that origin theories could somehow cause the unraveling of their beliefs. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how both faith and science can be embraced at once. A Christian can retain the most high view of the Bible and still be open to scientific theories regarding our physical reality. [For the purposes of this paper, I will refer to everything physical as “Creation,” but this should not be taken as implying a specific position regarding the evolution and six-day debates.]

Six-Day Creation: Fact or Myth?

If I were to tell a story about my child having a funny conversation with me during a long trip, I may condense the timing. I would likely leave out factors that make the story historically accurate, such as rate of speed, scenery, location, other drivers on the road, songs on the radio, etc., because my intention is to convey an interaction between myself and one of my children. While there may be an accurate retelling of some events that play into the story, historical accuracy is not my purpose. It is the same with the telling of any information; there is always something the storyteller is trying to communicate. There is always a purpose for the story.

Opposing parties in the United States will often debate as if only two options exist regarding the creation account in Genesis, or the Bible in its entirety, either: (1) Historical Fact or (2) Mythical Fiction. The problem with these categories is that neither communicates the mindset by which ancient writers would have recorded events. If I were to say that the six days of creation were historically factual, then you would take me to mean that I believe God made everything we see in six morning-to-evening periods. If I were to say the creation account is myth, you would probably take it to mean that I believe the Genesis account is a work of fiction being told out of a desire to explain what could not be understood at the time. These labels not only create a major hurdle to open discussions between the faith and science communities, but also within members of those communities themselves. We have erected barriers that need not exist. It is not necessary to alienate either side. Just like scientific methodology, there is a methodical way to approach the Bible. One of those methodologies that must be understood is that the Bible is interpreting history for the purpose of revealing God to man.[1] If we choose to objectively categorize the biblical text as being either historically accurate or unreliable, then we have missed the point.[2] 

Historical Views of the Church

Issues of faith and science were not seen as opposed by influential Christian leaders in their eras throughout the history of the faith. Every historical event is recounted for a purpose. Every recording of history will necessarily leave out various aspects. Origen of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas are all revered as brilliant theologians by Christians both in their day and still today. These three influential figures did not think it was destructive to their faith to entertain various thoughts on origin.

Origen (184-253) is considered a Church Father in that he is widely regarded as one of the most important theologians in history. He founded a school that taught logic, cosmology, and theology. He was tortured for his faith and later died from his injuries. He believed the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis to be the telling of how the inner and the outer – spiritual and physical – persons were formed by God.[3] Origen believed the first three chapters of Genesis tell a story of how societies and cultures develop.

Augustine (354-430) was an Early Church Bishop in North Africa. He was a theologian, philosopher, and prolific writer. Western society owes much of its philosophical heritage to Augustine’s City of God, an outline of God’s kingdom on earth and human government. Augustine wrote often in amazement of God’s creation. He wondered if all things were created as they exist, or if God designed and then set creative forces - formless physical and spiritual masses - into motion, then chose various times at which to enlighten His creation.[4] Augustine believed that the phrase, “Let there be light,” found in Genesis 1:3, referred to a spiritual illumination.[5] He did not seem to believe that creation as a gradual formation and God as Creator were mutually exclusive views.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) provided a biblical response and perspective to many of the cultural issues of his day. He was inspired greatly by the earlier writings of Augustine. Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae is a series of various objections to Christian belief. Summa Theologiae is a work that is still studied by any serious student of theology. Aquinas argues that the creative days in the first chapter of Genesis are for the purpose of distinguishing stages of God’s creative work. Aquinas writes:

“The works of distinction and adornment imply certain changes in the creature which are measurable by time; whereas the work of creation lies only in the Divine act producing the substance of beings instantaneously. For this reason, therefore, every work of distinction and adornment is said to take place ‘in a day,’ but creation ‘in the beginning’ which denotes something indivisible.”[6] 

Modern Views of the Church

The intensity of this particular debate is mainly confined to the political and denominational landscape of beliefs that developed in the mid-to-late 1800’s in the United States. This new system of Christian beliefs resulted in a fundamentalist movement within the faith. Fundamentalism requires a strict adherence to their system of beliefs and a mentality of “you are either with us or against us” toward those who differ. Fundamentalists have bought into the idea that we must either fully adhere to the Bible and creationism, because the alternative is atheism and evolution.

It is not this way in a majority of the world, and many pastors and theologians outside of the United States have spoken extensively about this oddity that exists in the U.S.A. The reality is that many influential and respected Christian theologians and leaders today, as throughout history, are open to varying interpretations of the biblical creation account. Today, there are many Christian pastors, biblical scholars, theologians, and philosophers who see no conflict between biblical authority and scientific discoveries about the cosmos. John Ortberg, Tremper Longman III, Scot McKnight, N.T. Wright, and Timothy Keller are just a few of the Christian leaders who have spoken up against the hostility and misunderstandings that exist from an understanding of the Bible that results in hostility toward the science community. However, there are still fundamentalist groups within Christianity asserting the dichotomy of these views.

A Sensible Approach

It is my belief that the broadest boundaries possible should be adopted in order to include as many people as possible seeking to join the Christian community, while still remaining faithful to the nature of Christianity. Both creation ex nihilo and imago dei are the boundaries which should be observed in order to make sense of the entirety of the Bible’s message of the redemption of mankind. Creation ex nihilo is the belief that an eternal God is the creative source of all things, but it does not distinguish the method by which God created. Incidentally, this is also what Charles Darwin argued and outlined in the closing lines of Origin of Species. Imago dei is the belief that man carries the image of God.

Finally, if we believe that God is the source of everything and that every human is an image-bearer of that God, then we will be left with no other option but to respond in awe of God and humility toward others. I’m afraid that my fellow Christians who fail to set broad boundaries regarding lesser issues, such as the method God chose to create – whether gradual or instantaneous, will continue to use our differences as weapons. The solution is to return to the openness exemplified by leaders in the Early Church, who were committed to understanding the intended meaning of scripture. They did not see scientific incorporation as a rejection of their faith. They viewed the expanding human understanding of God’s creation through science as a method by which to more fully understand what they read in their holy Scripture.

About the Author: David Moscrip has been writing about social issues from a Christian perspective for over fifteen years. He holds a Bachelor’s in Theology from Faith Christian College and is currently pursuing a Master’s in Divinity from Knox Theological Seminary. His work with government agencies around the world to advocate for ethical policies, especially regarding human trafficking, has given him a depth of experience from which to write. Originally from Indianapolis, Indiana, he now resides in Tampa, Florida where he works as a strategy consultant for religious, civic, and political organizations. He may be reached through his website www.wonderfullyplagued.com.

[1] Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 31

[2] Katheryn Applegate/J.B. Stump, How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 130-137

[3] Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. (2008). Genesis 1-3 as Source for the Anthropology of Origen. Vigiliae Christianae.

[4] St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 12.12.15, 13.2.3, 13.2.4

[5] St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 13.3.4

[6] Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Q74 A1

Dr Anthony Fauci’s Coronavirus Update for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), with definitions

JAMA June 2, 2020

A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) update on the coronavirus pandemic featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci (video interview below). Get your information straight from the leading medical science association. As I watched the video, I looked up the definitions to the words or acronyms they used, and I’ve listed them here so you can skip that process.
Hopefully you find this helpful. Please leave any comments or suggestions you have for me, and I’ll incorporate them in my future posts.

Definitions: 

mRNA - messenger RNA

Comorbidity - having two diseases/health conditions

Efficacious - effective

Monoclonal Antibody - lab created antibodies designed to attach to/neutralize target proteins

Convalescent Plasma - antibody proteins taken from recovered patients’s blood plasma and injected into ill patients to promote immune response

Hyperimmune Globulin - similar to above, antibody proteins taken from plasma and administered as a prophylaxis (preventative treatment) to induce (passive) immune response

Passive Immunity - the introduction of antibodies to defend against infection, like antibodies passed from mother to child in breast milk

Prophylaxis - treatment for preventing disease or infection

Seropositivity - blood serum that contains antibodies, indicating the body has been exposed to and successfully fought an infection

Anecdotal - informal information, usually about a accounts of successful treatment, gathered from stories rather than controlled research

Randomized Clinical Trial - one or more treatments given randomly to participants where data is collected and outcomes are compared to placebo (i.e. sugar pill) treatment

Variability - a measure of the distribution of multiple data points, how they vary from the average, and how the points are spread across the entire data set. Low variability means the data points would be closer together, and high variability means the data points would be further apart. 

Immunity Passports - a document a person could obtain to prove they were not at risk of infecting others

Durability of Infection - a measure of how long resistance to a pathogen is expected to persist that is used to estimate how long a disease can be controlled at a population level

Asymptomatic Spread - infection spread by individuals not showing symptoms 

PCR Testing - collecting a sample and using a polymerase chain reaction (a way of rapid DNA replication) to find viral presence

Replication Competent Virus - a virus capable of replication, meaning infection can occur

Cycle Threshold - a measure of many cycles it takes (how fast DNA replicates) in a PCR test to reach a certain threshold, used to compare PCR samples over time

Replication Competent - genes with the ability to replicate, and signals the infection ability in a virus

IgG - immunoglobulin G, the most common antibody

IgM - immunoglobulin M, the first antibody the body makes in a new infection

Titer - The concentration of an antibody

Durability of Immunity - a long lasting immune response is a durable immune response

NIAID Director Anthony Fauci discusses recent developments in the global COVID-19 pandemic with JAMA Editor Howard Bauchner. Recorded on June 2, 2020. ======...

I Was an Exxon-Funded Climate Scientist

This article was originally published by The Conversation on August 24, 2017.

Exxon funded climate scientists while the bulk of its public-facing advertorials argued the science and cause of climate change was uncertain. AP Photo/Mark Humphrey

Katharine Hayhoe, Texas Tech University

ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time, now.

Investigative reports in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.

A peer-reviewed study published August 23 confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements. Specifically, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science – acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would agree with at the time. Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the study found.

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon?

I have a unique perspective – because I was there.

From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my master’s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions. I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of the published studies referenced in Supran and Oreskes’ new analysis.

Climate research at Exxon

A scientist is a scientist no matter where we work, and my Exxon colleagues were no exception. Thoughtful, cautious and in full agreement with the scientific consensus on climate – these are characteristics any scientist would be proud to own.

Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course – it’s not a charity. Their research and development was targeted, and in my case, it was targeted at something that would raise no red flags in climate policy circles: quantifying the benefits of methane reduction.

Methane is a waste product released by coal mining and natural gas leaks; wastewater treatment plants; farting and belching cows, sheep, goats and anything else that chews its cud; decaying organic trash in garbage dumps; giant termite mounds in Africa; and even, in vanishingly small amounts, our own lactose-intolerant family members.

On a mass basis, methane absorbs about 35 times more of the Earth’s heat than carbon dioxide. Methane has a much shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide gas, and we produce a lot less of it, so there’s no escaping the fact that carbon has to go. But if our concern is how fast the Earth is warming, we can get a big bang for our buck by cutting methane emissions as soon as possible, while continuing to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels long-term.

For the gas and oil industry, reducing methane emissions means saving energy. So it’s no surprise that, during my research, I didn’t experience any heavy-handed guidance or interference with my results. No one asked to review my code or suggested ways to “adjust” my findings. The only requirement was that a journal article with an Exxon co-author pass an internal review before it could be submitted for peer review, a policy similar to that of many federal agencies.

Did I know what else they were up to at the time? I couldn’t even imagine it.

Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I’d married one – let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.

Yet Exxon’s choices have contributed directly to the situation we are in today, a situation that in many ways seems unreal: one where many elected representatives oppose climate action, while China leads the U.S. in wind energy, solar power, economic investment in clean energy and even the existence of a national cap and trade policy similar to the ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.

Personal decisions

This latest study underscores why many are calling on Exxon to be held responsible for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another, different, yet similarly moral debate.

Are we willing to accept financial support that is offered as a sop to the public conscience?

The concept of tendering literal payment for sin is nothing new. From the indulgences of the Middle Ages to the criticisms some have leveled at carbon offsets today, we humans have always sought to stave off the consequences of our actions and ease our conscience with good deeds, particularly of the financial kind. Today, many industry groups follow this familiar path: supporting science denial with the left hand, while giving to cutting-edge research and science with the right.

As an academic, how should one consider the sources of funding? Gabe Chmielewski for Mays Communications, CC BY-NC-ND

The Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University conducts fundamental research on efficient and clean energy technologies – with Exxon as a founding sponsor. Philanthropist and political donor David Koch gave an unprecedented US$35 million to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in 2015, after which three dozen scientists called on the museum to cut ties with him for funding lobbying groups that “misrepresent” climate science. Shell underwrote the London Science Museum’s “Atmosphere” program and then used its leverage to muddy the waters on what scientists know about climate.

It may be easy to point a finger at others, but when it happens to us, the choice might not seem so clear. Which is most important – the benefit of the research and education, or the rejection of tainted funds?

The appropriate response to morally tainted offerings is an ancient question. In the book of Corinthians, the apostle Paul responds to a query on what to do with food that has been sacrificed to idols – eat or reject?

His response illustrates the complexity of this issue. Food is food, he says – and by the same token, we might say money is money today. Both food and money, though, can imply alliance or acceptance. And if it affects others, a more discerning response may be needed.

What are we as academics to do? In this open and transparent new publishing world of ours, declaration of financial supporters is both important and necessary. Some would argue that a funder, however loose and distant the ties, casts a shadow over the resulting research. Others would respond that the funds can be used for good. Which carries the greatest weight?

After two decades in the trenches of climate science, I’m no longer the ingenue I was. I’m all too aware, now, of those who dismiss climate science as a “liberal hoax.” Every day, they attack me on Facebook, vilify me on Twitter and even send the occasional hand-typed letter - which begs appreciation of the artistry, if not the contents. So now, if Exxon came calling, what would I do?

There’s no one right answer to this question. Speaking for myself, I might ask them to give those funds to politicians who endorse sensible climate policy – and cut their funding to those who don’t. Or I admire one colleague’s practical response: to use a Koch-funded honorarium to purchase a lifetime membership in the Sierra Club.

Despite the fact that there’s no easy answer, it’s a question that’s being posed to more and more of us every day, and we cannot straddle the fence any longer. As academics and scientists, we have some tough choices to make; and only by recognizing the broader implications of these choices are we able to make these decisions with our eyes wide open, rather than half shut.

Katharine Hayhoe, Professor and Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

What the Early Church Thought about God's Gender

Originally published by The Conversation on August 1, 2018.

What the early church thought about God's gender

 

         

        All Saints Episcopal Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.         Carolyn Fitzpatrick      

 

David Wheeler-Reed, Albertus Magnus College

The Episcopal Church has decided to revise its 1979 prayer book, so that God is no longer referred to by masculine pronouns. 

The prayer book, first published in 1549 and now in its fourth edition, is the symbol of unity for the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion founded in 1867. While there is no clear timeline for the changes, religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the  masculine terms for God such as “He” and “King” and “Father.”

Indeed, early Christian writings and texts, all refer to God in feminine terms.

God of the Hebrew Bible

                       

              Hebrew Bible.               Stock Catalog, CC BY            

         

As a scholar of Christian origins and gender theory, I’ve studied the early references to God.

In Genesis, for example, women and men are created in the “Imago Dei,” image of God, which suggests that God transcends socially constructed notions of gender. Furthermore, Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible written in the seventh century B.C., states that God gave birth to Israel.

In the oracles of the eighth century prophet Isaiah, God is described as a woman in labor and a mother comforting her children.

And the Book of Proverbs maintains that the feminine figure of Holy Wisdom, Sophia, assisted God during the creation of the world.

Indeed, The Church Fathers and Mothers understood Sophia to be the “Logos,” or Word of God. Additionally, Jewish rabbis equated the Torah, the law of God, with Sophia, which means that feminine wisdom was with God from the very beginning of time.

Perhaps one of the most remarkable things ever said about God in the Hebrew Bible occurs in Exodus 3 when Moses first encounters the deity and asks for its name. In verse 14, God responds, “I am who I am,” which is simply a mixture of “to be” verbs in Hebrew without any specific reference to gender. If anything, the book of Exodus is clear that God is simply “being,” which echoes later Christian doctrine that God is spirit.

In fact, the personal name of God, Yahweh, which is revealed to Moses in Exodus 3, is a remarkable combination of both female and male grammatical endings. The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine. In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb – the most active and dynamic of all.”

God in the New Testament

                       

              New Testament.               kolosser417, CC BY            

         

In the New Testament, Jesus also presents himself in feminine language. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus stands over Jerusalem and weeps, saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

Furthermore, the author of Matthew equates Jesus with the feminine Sophia (wisdom), when he writes, “Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” In Matthew’s mind, it seems that Jesus is the feminine Wisdom of Proverbs, who was with God from the beginning of creation. In my opinion, I think it is very likely that Matthew is suggesting that there is a spark of the feminine in Jesus’ nature.

Additionally, in his letter to the Galatians, written around 54 or 55 A.D., Paul says that he will continue “in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”

Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.

The church fathers

This trend continues with the writings of the Church fathers. In his book “Salvation to the Rich Man,” Clement, the bishop of Alexandria who lived around 150-215 A.D., states, “In his ineffable essence he is father; in his compassion to us he became mother. The father by loving becomes feminine.” It’s important to remember that Alexandria was one of the most important Christian cities in the second and third centuries along with Rome and Jerusalem. It was also the hub for Christian intellectual activity.

Additionally, in another book, “Christ the Educator,” he writes, “The Word [Christ] is everything to his little ones, both father and mother.” Augustine, the fourth-century bishop of Hippo in North Africa, uses the image of God as mother to demonstrate that God nurses and cares for the faithful. He writes, “He who has promised us heavenly food has nourished us on milk, having recourse to a mother’s tenderness.”

And, Gregory, the bishop of Nyssa, one of the early Greek church fathers who lived from 335-395 A.D., speaks of God’s unknowable essence – God’s transcendence – in feminine terms. He says,

“The divine power, though exalted far above our nature and inaccessible to all approach, like a tender mother who joins in the inarticulate utterances of her babe, gives to our human nature what it is capable of receiving.”

What is God’s gender?

                       

              Do images limit our religious experience?               Saint-Petersburg Theological Academy, CC BY-ND            

         

Modern followers of Jesus live in a world where images risk becoming socially, politically or morally inadequate. When this happens, as the feminist theologian Judith Plaskow notes, “Instead of pointing to and evoking the reality of God, [our images] block the possibility of religious experience.” In other words, limiting God to masculine pronouns and imagery limits the countless religious experiences of billions of Christians throughout the world.

It is probably best, then, for modern day Christians to heed the words and warning of bishop Augustine, who once said, “si comprehendis non est Deus.” If you have understood, then what you have understood is not God.

David Wheeler-Reed, Visiting Assistant Professor, Albertus Magnus College

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.