Across the pond, science and religion mix
In an interesting USA Today piece, religion writer Mark I. Pinsky examines why scientists in the UK can openly profess their evangelicalism while in the U.S., biblical Christianity is widely considered the enemy of science. UK’s roster of scientists who both hold to a biblical worldview and are at the pinnacle of their fields includes Sir John Houghton, former head of the United Kingdom’s Meteorological Office; Sir John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, Anglican priest and author of numerous books on science and religion; Sir Brian Heap, a biologist; geologist Robert W. White; and paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. Pinsky writes:
And they are not perfunctory adherents, merely showing up for Sunday worship; they believe in acting on their beliefs. Some have taken up weekend pulpits.
I asked these scientists the sources of their belief, and the answers they gave me were intriguing to someone who for years has been more immersed in the world of American evangelicals, where I frequently found that hostility toward science seemed to be the norm in public controversies.
The scientists Pinsky interviewed say the theory of evolution is an “unlikely” explanation of origins. They also accept the biblical accounts of Jesus’s birth, death, and resurrection. And yet, in Britain, they remain widely respected, while in the U.S. they would likely be catcalled into silence or obscurity. Here’s why.




WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!


















back to top45 Comments to “Across the pond, science and religion mix”
As I read the article, the scientists said that evolution is an unlikely explanation of the origin of life itself, but they accept evolution as an explanation of the origin of species - which is what evolution is about.
I’m not so certain that scientists in the U.S. who believe in theistic evolution - as these British scientists do - are “catcalled into silence or obscurity.” Unless you mean catcalls from evangelicals who consider belief in theistic evolution to be tantamount to a denial of God’s Word.
Report comment as offensive
This story and the linked article bring up an interesting topic of conversation. Why is there much more hostility here in the science/religion debate than in England?
My theory for what it’s worth is that in America, whenever you try to bring Christianity into the mainstream of America, you are going to be met with great resistance. Whether in education, politics, or even watercooler chatter, schools, governments, and private businesses will go out of their way to keep religious worldviewpoints out of the mainstream. Look at the hostility derived from the nominating of an evangelical vp candidate.
Because of this colliding of worldviews, hostility is more likely to erupt between conservatives who feel sensored and liberal minded scientists who feel attacked. Regarding this particular situation, when you speak to evolutionary scientists, their greatest concerns always fall back on conservatives desires to bring Creationism/Intelligent Design into the public schools. That is when the cold front and warm front collide and the thunder and lightening starts.
If conservatives would just stay out of public policy, then I believe the hostility between evolutionary science and evangelical christians would subside. But we all know as evangelicals, whenever you try to take ground from Satan, he does not go down without a fight.
Report comment as offensive
Very interesting, Lynn. Thanks for posting this.
Report comment as offensive
Lynn says, “The scientists Pinsky interviewed say the theory of evolution is an “unlikely” explanation of origins.”
But that is not in the article. Evolution is not a theory of origins, and all the scientists embrace it fully.
The article says, “These English researchers embrace the concept known as “theistic evolution,” entailing a God-created universe that is billions of years old in which Darwinian evolution operates. They scoff at the notions of creationism and intelligent design…”
Lynn is probably confusing a statement about “evolution” with this statement from the article (which is NOT about evolution):
“First, they say the likelihood that intelligent, carbon-based life originated in the universe by chance is infinitesimally minute. And second, they proclaim their belief in what they accept as the firsthand, biblical accounts of Jesus’ life, death and physical resurrection.”
Please read more carefully dear editor - this is a point of substance and highlights the difference wrt how American evangelicals pit themselves against science.
Report comment as offensive
p.s. Also - are British Anglicans actually “evangelicals” as desribed in the article??? I don’t think so … if the term is defined as used on this side of the Atlantic, they certainly wouldn’t identify themselves as such!
Report comment as offensive
All truth is God’s truth, as these scholars would undoubtedly confirm.
Report comment as offensive
#2
Every so often I read a post that is so silly, I have to save it away as a classic of sillyness. This one made my top 10.
Let’s see. We elected a Christian President. Well, I guess most or all of our Presidents were, but I am not sure many wore their religion on their sleeve as much as the present one does. Isn’t that “bringing Christianity into the mainstream?”
He won a great war against terrorism.
He presided over the the greatest triumphs in the American economy we’ve ever observed and experienced. Check the chickens in your pots and the cars in your garages.
He presided over the American empire lording over upstarts such as China, India, and Brazil as we continue to dominate the world with our empire. Why just the other day, the Chinese put astronauts into space. Silly upstarts. Did they think playing with toy rockets would impress us?
Beats me why there is any resistance against bringing Christianity into the mainstream.
Hang on. You ain’t seen nothin yet.
Report comment as offensive
“All truth is God’s truth, as these scholars would undoubtedly confirm.”
And as evangelicals in America strenuously deny…
Report comment as offensive
So I believe the correct quote is:
“First, they say the likelihood that intelligent, carbon-based life originated in the universe by chance is infinitesimally minute. ”
This is I suggest differetn than Lynn’s suggestions:
“The scientists Pinsky interviewed say the theory of evolution is an “unlikely” explanation of origins”
since evolution does not itself explain origns.
And further down the article it notes:
“These English researchers embrace the concept known as “theistic evolution,” entailing a God-created universe that is billions of years old in which Darwinian evolution operates.”
whic is to say that thye do explicitly accept Darwinian evolution.
In short, Lynn, I suggest that the article does not express what you appear to be suggesting that it expresses.
Lets be clear: it is difficult if not impossible to not accept evolution AND be a rigorous scientist.
Or an alternative form of the argument: in general one can not be a young earth creationist AND accept standard norms of scientific evidence.
Report comment as offensive
Pauline post 1,
I believe you have it captured correctly here. Origin of life is very different from evolution AND the article explicitly states that these scientists do accept evolution.
This is very similar to Francis Collins who is an evangelical Christian AND an excellent scientist (see Peter Leavett’s comments on this point).
Report comment as offensive
Chazz post 2,
actu8ally there is no difficulty with science an dreligion UNTIL religion insists that the scientific evidence is wrong BECAUSE my religion says it is.
Note that these scientists do not appear to allow their religion to override their evaluation of evidence.
Those who push creationism in this country explicitly do insist that their religion override the scientific evidence.
Report comment as offensive
Perhaps I am too deeply entrenched in academia but I see the US science community as being very atheistic and rejecting all pretenses of there being a God at all.
“Intelligent Design” (albeit a poor man’s creationism) is considered a topic of derision and the mere mention of God’s hand would be shouted down.
The mainstream media doesn’t fare much better though. Religious beliefs are paraded around as issues of scorn.
I prefer the humble God-fearing scientist who realizes he knows little and will search honestly for truth with an open mind.
Report comment as offensive
Musing,
Please define your words more carefully! “Creationism” includes theistic evolution, old-earth creationism, as well as young earth creationism. To use your terms so loosely as to imply that “creationism” only means YECs is poor form.
Report comment as offensive
Regarding the question posed by the article, why is there more hostility in this country than in England towards introducing scientists who might promote some creationist theories when they have scientific evidence to back it up?
My answer is that whenever you attempt to introduce a christian worldview perspective into the mainstream, in this country you will be met with hostility.
It seems that the responses here to my initial post only back up that theory.
Report comment as offensive
Theo Goodw=n post 12,
but Intelligent Design as propsoed by Behe does not make it to the level of scientific theory. as such its acceptance has nothing to do with religion or non-religion.
Report comment as offensive
Intelligent Design certainly has to do with religion and nonreligion. It is an attempt to wrap religion in non-religion.
It ends up being unacceptable to everyone. Distasteful to the religious and equally unpalatable to the irreligious.
Not a scientific theory but not a religious theology.
Report comment as offensive
These English researchers embrace the concept known as “theistic evolution,”…”
Well, no wonder they’re not reviled. The leaven is already in the dough.
Report comment as offensive
I wish I’d thought of “The leaven is already in the dough.” That says it all. Bible believers have never had a problem with genuine, honest science. But there is a huge difference between true science and worldly philosophy, which is actually its own religion. You have to have great faith to believe, “Once upon a time, boys and girls, there was this big bang…” or “Once upon a time, there was this primordial soup, and then a big bolt of lightning…” Fairy tales, not science. Not by a long shot. The fabled “billions of years” are the perfect smoke-screen.
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” I Timothy 6:20-21
Genuine science confirms — rather than denies — the truth about biblical events. A good example can be found at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
“Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” I Corinthians 5:8
Report comment as offensive
LL Mac post 19,
I suggest that if you reread the article you will find that these scientists accept the evidence and adjust their religious understandings around this point.
By contrast the religous try to contort the evidence to match their religuous perspective.
The result is not even truly science.
Report comment as offensive
LL MAC post 18,
more correctly some religious persons try to contort the evidence to match theri religous beliefs.
It is possible to be a good scientist and be religious. One must accept the eivdence in this case, however.
Report comment as offensive
Chalzz My answer is that whenever you attempt to introduce a christian worldview perspective into the mainstream, in this country you will be met with hostility.
What kind of alternative universe do you live in? The Christian worldview IS the mainstream in America. You couldn’t escape it if you tried.
You have the persecution complex even worse than most, it seems.
Report comment as offensive
Genuine science confirms — rather than denies — the truth about biblical events. A good example can be found at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Well gee, if it’s all already in the Bible, I guess we don’t need scientists then.
I wish I had a way to signify how high I roll my eyes at this kind of ignorance. “Genuine science reaches the conclusion I want to believe because it’s in my holy book.” Good grief.
Report comment as offensive
The reason it’s much more acceptable for science and religion to mix in the UK is because Christianity over there has not found it necessary to insist that science is the enemy.
Lynn tosses a bit of a red herring in saying they find evolution unlikely as an explanation of origins, if by that she means the origin of life itself, as Spinoza indicates in #4. Evolution is not an explanation of the existence of life, it’s an explanation of the way life changes over long periods of time.
I read Polkinghorne’s The Faith of a Physicist some years ago. It’s a quite a good book, but guess what? Polkinghorne is a physicist who both understands and accepts the Big Bang, and finds it in no way disharmonious with his faith.
And therein lies the difference. American evangelicals take the ridiculous position that LL Mac stakes out above … that the Bible is literally true and “genuine science” says so. The UK approach is that the scientific findings about the universe, and life, are what they are and any genuine theology must accommodate that.
Report comment as offensive
Since there is lacking evidence for origins, evolutionary science has conveniently attempted to remove itself from the study of origins and repackaged it under a new name. When I was in school, evolutionary study focused on two parts, origins and transformation of life. Regardless of how the science world defines what is or is not evolutionary study, the common vernacular outside of the science world includes both origins and transformation of life.
Report comment as offensive
#21 So are you suggesting our constitution is based on an evangelical christian worldview?
Other than that, what proof can you provide that the christian worldview is the “mainstream” as you proclaim?
#22 Brother Steve, it sounds like you have had a tough day. Please don’t roll your eyes too far back, they might not return to their original position as designed by God and then you wouldn’t be able to read these posts that draw you in to this place of your scorn.
LL Mac is not suggesting we don’t scientists. They have been a wonderful blessing benefiting greatly our way of life in this world.
When science deviates from fact to fiction, then you see science relying as much on faith as those who believe they were created by a god do. Time and chance are as much a god to the atheist as God is to christians.
#23 Science is not our enemy, provide your evidence that there is a unified christian declaration that science is the enemy.
Also, you should be cautious about putting all christians in some convenient box of your own making. We do not all have the same perspectives on origins. We all believe we were created by God yes, but we disagree on the possibility of a big bang occuring or whether we are a new earth or an old earth. And the bible gives very little accounting as to how God created the earth, only that He did. So scripturally we will never be able to provide an account as detailed as scientific theory does regarding origins.
Report comment as offensive
…and finally Steve G, you could help yourself out by being a bit kinder and gentler. You suggested the following from your posts:
1. I live in an alternative universe (sounds kind of like a slam to me)
2. I have persecution complex (another slam)
3. You suggest to LL Mac that he and those that think like him are ignorant.
4. You suggest that LL Mac is ridiculous.
Not horrible attacks, but your editorial style reveals you more as a journalist than a scientist.
Report comment as offensive
Chalzz post 24,
this comment:
“Since there is lacking evidence for origins, evolutionary science has conveniently attempted to remove itself from the study of origins and repackaged it under a new name. ”
demonstrates such a deep lack of scientific understanding that it is hard to believe.
Evolution does not talk of origin either life or the universe, because the mechanisms and principles which undergird these studies is diffferent from the mechanisms and principles which undergird evolution.
If this is the level of understanding brought to the discussion, then no wonder these conversations seem to wander.
Report comment as offensive
Challzz post 25,
now this comment is interesting:
“Other than that, what proof can you provide that the christian worldview is the “mainstream” as you proclaim?”
but first, what do you mean by Christianity?
If you mean the Christian cultural melieu which is one of the underpinning of European culture then most assuredly Christianity does permeate all of American culture and society.
If you mean evangelical Christianity with a strong version of Biblical inerrancy, this is indeed a minority position in this country and among Christians.
but if you are making the latter argument, you are indeed raising a false flag.
You are not arguing for Christianity, you are rather arguing for your own minority sect of Christianity.
And I suggest that when you recast your argument this way what you are arguing is that because you have chosen a minority Christian perspective you are now upset that you have chosen a minority Christian perspective.
Report comment as offensive
Chalzz,
what I am sensing here is an argument that goes because the facts do fit what I want them to fit, then I am being persecuted.
I suspect that a more useful approach is to debate each of the issues on their own merit and see how the discussion develops.
So to start it off, from an objective and scientific perspective please demonstrate why we should consider the Bible as scientifically and objectively inerrant.
I look forward to your objective data demonstrating this position.
Report comment as offensive
Chalzz,
now in fairness for my post 29, I shgould probably provide some data reagrding science:
1) science is a process for evaluating objectvie data
- we can explore each of these concepts in more detail if you like
2) the purpose of science is to provide a solid foundation for making predicitions about objective world
- it is observed that predictions are “useful” typically because they enhance survival
As such, science makes no claim other than being able to assist us in predicting how the objective world will behave. it makes no moral claims, and it makes no spiritual or philosophical claims.
Science is justified purely on the pragmatic observation “that it works”.
Report comment as offensive
As such, science makes no claim other than being able to assist us in predicting how the objective world will behave. it makes no moral claims, and it makes no spiritual or philosophical claims.
******But, it does…all the time. That’s the problem.
If you aren’t aware of that, then you are demonstrating a very low “level of understanding” and obviously have been living in some secluded place far, far away.
Report comment as offensive
TRS post 31,
no science makes no such claims.
There are people who use the results of science to argue some of these claims. At root such claims are philosophical and science has no way of manipulating a philosophical concept.
Buried in here is an understanding of the difference between the subjective and the objective, and we can explore this if you like.
Report comment as offensive
TRS post 31,
now it is true that religion at times tries to make scientific claims. This tends to have unfortuante results for religion.
And when these results appear, religion often argues that science is against religion.
This is of course nonsense. Rather religion has extnded its area of expertise into areas where it has no expertise and the reuslts as I noted is often unfortunate from the perspective of religion.
Report comment as offensive
TRS post 31,
now there is an area of gray between the expertise of religoon and the expertise of science, and interesting discussions sometimes happen in these areas.
So for a time the nature of the stars and the solar system was a religious question. Its movement to a scientific question was very exciting (ask Galileo). But this is now an area generally conceded to be one for science.
Report comment as offensive
Musing writes, “Evolution does not talk of origin either life or the universe, because the mechanisms and principles which undergird these studies is diffferent from the mechanisms and principles which undergird evolution”
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, but then I pose the question, Why does a 7nth grade text book include in the study of evolution, origins? If what you state above is true, why doesn’t this translate from the labratory to the text book?
Report comment as offensive
Musing wrties “Chalzz…demonstrates such a deep lack of scientific understanding that it is hard to believe.”
I am not a scientist and never claimed to be, so my presentations come from a laymans perspective. This is a blog on a periodicals website, not a sounding board for phd wannabe’s. I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from putting me down even if your evaluation is correct concerning me.
Thank you.
Report comment as offensive
Musing writes: “”If you mean evangelical Christianity with a strong version of Biblical inerrancy, this is indeed a minority position in this country and among Christians…
You are not arguing for Christianity, you are rather arguing for your own minority sect of Christianity.
And I suggest that when you recast your argument this way what you are arguing is that because you have chosen a minority Christian perspective you are now upset that you have chosen a minority Christian perspective.”"
Do you see your style Muse, it is so passive agressive. You speak calmly and peacefully but you dig apart. Do you do this in your circles too? It is not a good form of communication.
Regardless, I am thrilled about my “minority Christian perspective” as you describe it. I will agree with you that my position is a minority position. But my position used to be one of more liberality as I endulged in all the world had to offer. But inside I was miserable until I saw the light. Jesus is the answer Muse, find Him and you will find peace and freedom from whatever drives you to such passive agressive tendencies.
Oh thank you for the brief explanation of the differing “christian worldviews”. In my closed little world I didn’t realize there was more than one definition. I’ll clarify my use of the term christian worldview. Perhaps you should contact the editors of Worldmag because I think they use the same terminology.
Report comment as offensive
Musing writes: “”So to start it off, from an objective and scientific perspective please demonstrate why we should consider the Bible as scientifically and objectively inerrant.”"
This is a set up if I have ever seen one. I bet you can’t wait to rip apart whatever I have to say, so this is “all” I will say…
Did Jesus walk the earth, is there enough evidence to say yes, there was a man named Jesus that walked the face of the earth 2000 (+/-) years ago that is the bases of the christian religion.
If he existed, are the acounts accurate about the life he lived. Did he really heal the sick supernaturally, did he raise the dead, the the blind see, did he calm the ocean, did he produce enough food to feed 5000 from a couple fish a a few loaves of bread. If the accounts can be trusted, is this enough evidence to support his miracles?
If he existed, and he did all these miracles, then is that enough evidence for him to be who he claimed to be, the son of God?
And if he existed, and did all these things, and his claim to be the son of God is true, then were the old testament prophets correct in claiming hundreds of years prior that Jesus would walk the earth? Are their predictions enough evidence?
If he existed, and did all these things, and he was the son of God, and the prophets who foretold his coming were right, then is the God that claims to have created us for real?
I believe all this to be true, and yes it takes an element of faith to believe this. I was once in your shoes and know hard it is to convince you of the existence of a living God. But God has a far better way to convince you than I do, and I look forward to that as I bring you before my prayer partners. Your science is no match for the power of prayer and the Holy Spirit so hang onto your socks Muse and get ready to be rocked by a loving God that created you!
Report comment as offensive
chalzz post 35,
and why do some childrens stories of the Bible misrepresent the stories?
Perhaps because they were badly written?
Report comment as offensive
chalzz post 36,
so I have often run down the short and long versions of this discussion in this blog and am happy to do it any time someone wants to dicuss it seriously.
Science is not a body of knowledge.
Science is a process for aquiring knowledge, or more correctly for confirming observations and analyzing data.
The primary intent of science is to make high quality predictions (some may argue this, but then ask what is the purpose of a well tested theouy such as the theory of gravity?
).
One outcome of these scientific efforts is a body of knowledge. But this body of knowledge is an outcome of the scientific process: it is not in and of itself science.
Are you with me so far? Do you have any major challenges to my observations and assertions?
Report comment as offensive
Chalzz post 37,
I am not aware of it being passive.
It is most certainly intended to be aggressive.
But it is a very strong aggression toward the ideas and the foundations for these ideas, not to the poster.
And as I have noted before, this blog tends to use rubber words. One of these words which is rubber is Christian.
So for the majority of Christianity (approximatley 2/3 of American Christianity) Biblical inerrancy is not considered a necessary part of their doctrine.
So Biblical inerrancy is a minority position among Christians.
Christinianity as a cultural melieu is a 90+% common element in American culture appearing in all kinds of forms.
So lets stop using Christinaity in its rubber form:
- Christianity in its general form is the majority culture of America
- Christianity in its evangelical form with an insistence on Biblical inerrancy is a minority position both in Christianity and in America
So there is no persecution nor discrimination nor significant resistance to Christinaity as the general mileiu: just look at the dollar bill and think of how the words “In God We Trust” got there: it was this general form of Christinianity.
There are significant forces arrayed against the strong forms of Biblical inerrancy particularly when these are used in contexts which are not religious.
So when you appear to suggest that Christians are persecuted in this country:
1) you are trivially shown to be wrong
2) it is plausibly clear that you actually mean Christinaity with a storng form of Biblical inerrancy not Christinaity in general
The use of rubber words here both detracts from the discussion AND creates artificial arguments.
So when you note:
“I will agree with you that my position is a minority position. But my position used to be one of more liberality as I endulged in all the world had to offer”
you are actively choosing this minority position. And I suggest that this choice has its own consequences.
Report comment as offensive
Chalzz post 38,
so of course it is a set up:
“is is a set up if I have ever seen one. I bet you can’t wait to rip apart whatever I have to say, so this is “all” I will say…”
But it is the set up you are setting your self up for, I just cut to the quick more rapidly than most. You may duck the question this time, but if you persist in arguments which bring the Bible into scientific questions, then I suggest you will eventually be forced to answer it, so we can answer it now OR you can think about it.
You will not, however, be able to duck it if you persist down this path.
Report comment as offensive
chalzz post 38,
so for reference I believe in God and I am a Christian. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant.
So lets look at your questions:
1) Did Jesus walk the earth?
We have the Biblical acocunts which suggest he did AND we have what is argualby an independent account from Tacitus which argues that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
So we have confirmatory evidence that Jesus lived and was crucified and I suggest there is adequate evidence to consider this as true as we can probalby prove any historical statement.
2) If he existed, are the acounts accurate about the life he lived?
We have no way of confirming if these accounts are true or not. Arguing that they are true is speculation.
3) If he existed, and he did all these miracles, then is that enough evidence for him to be who he claimed to be, the son of God?
This is a defective question on several fronts. One we can not confirm the truth of pretty much any of the Biblical acocunts of Jesus, so using them as evidence from an objective perspective is unwarrented.
But there is a deeper problem: what do you mean by the term “son of God”?
This is a non-trivial definitional issue which I have seen take up much space in this blog among very strong believers who believe in inerrancy of the Bible.
I am happy to say yes, that Jesus was the sopn of God But I storngly suspect that you and I have vastly differnet meanings for this same phrase.
4) then were the old testament prophets correct in claiming hundreds of years prior that Jesus would walk the earth?
Since we have no ability to confirm the consistency of the Old Testament texts going back before the Babylonian captivity AND our oldest Old Testmant text is perhaps from 300 BCE or so, AND we do not have objectively supported versions of the events of Jesus life, the answer is of course that we really don’t know.
5) then is the God that claims to have created us for real?
Two problems:
a) all of your previous arguments appear to be faulty after question 2
b) what do you mean by God? This is not an idle question AND one this blog has consistently refused to come to grips with, yet we bandy about the word God with abandon as yet again another of our rubber words
On this point I will grant you:
“I believe all this to be true,”
but remember, you believe this to be true but you can not prove this to be true.
And the difference here is crucial.
Now were you and I to go and relook at these texts and discuss their spiritual and reliigous meanings, based on past discussion with a number of believer of strong inerrancy we would probably agree on a number of things and disagree on a number, but there is room for an honest and meaningful conversation.
If you assert that these are objectively true, yet do not provide th evidence when I challenge you, then of course the conversation becomes very thin indeed.
And indeed we are back to what you termed a set up, but note that you are setting yourself up, I am only illuminating that you are doing so.
Report comment as offensive