Tuesday, November 14, 2006
What Is A Christian That Does Science To Do?
The Point - a relatively new blog founded by some poeple in Chuck Colson's ministries - has been doing some great stuff lately. I was especially intrigued by this post on the LA Times coverage of a homosexual couple trying to obtain offpring. The post included a very eriudite quotation from Richard Samuelson at The Claremont Institute:
What about the use of modern technological means to "preserve" a natural habitat. Or the use of technology to replace technology to "preserve the eco-system." Manipulate and consume natural resources to preserve natural resources? Sounds like a lateral move to me, not a genuine improvement. I am struck about how necessary a philosophical, even religous, underpinning is for someone that wants to do science. Without such, we focus too much on the specifics without putting in into some sort of greater context.
Do we do science to conquer nature or to understand it and harmonize with it? Are their different points to do one and not the other? Is nature as it should be, or is it somehow wrong? Is there some science we simply should not do?
This last question is, I think, a very real one for Christians, particularly in medicine and the biological sciences. As Christians, our goal in science is to discover more about God by discovering how His creation works. As the painting reflects the painter, so creation reflects our Lord. And yet, increasingly some science, primarily reproductive science, seeks not to manipulate God's created order, but to defy it. Granting genetic children to a homosexual couple is an excellent example of just such defiance of God's created order.
I am not familiar with many Christian science-types asking questions like this. Oh there are many that simply refuse to do certain work, much to their credit, but are there conferences? Where are the scientists on seminary faculties working with the philosophers and theologians to ask these questions and define these boundaries? Most universities have severed ties with seminaries and divinity schools, in some cases prescisely to avoid the kind of intereaction I propose here. Is it time for seminaries to add science departments? There are some institutes and other academic institutions, but they are few, they struggle for funding and noteriety.
I love science, I love knowing how the universe works, mostly because I love my Lord. Frankly, in my school days when much of this kind of stuff was imagined, but not yet realized, I assumed God had cleverly erected barriers in His creation that would prevent us from achieving such usurption of His place in the universe. I underestimated God's willingness to let us sink into sin and His desire to have us come to Him of our own violition.
Science and faith have to come together somehow, somewhere. Not merely in the lives of faithful scientists, but in the institutions of religion and learning. There is simply too much at stake.
Related Tags: science, religion, biology, seminary, university, reproduction
The attitude toward nature is fascinating here. On one hand, nature gives the couple its moral bearings. That they are attracted to men and not women dictates how they lead their lives. On the other hand, they use technology to overcome nature. It allows them to become, in a sense, joint fathers. What is the connection between these two attitudes toward nature?He is so right about people who generally are on the left politically, certainly outside the realm of faith, and how they have a bit of a schizophrenic relationship with nature. This story does illustrate one very stark contrast, but consider another.
What about the use of modern technological means to "preserve" a natural habitat. Or the use of technology to replace technology to "preserve the eco-system." Manipulate and consume natural resources to preserve natural resources? Sounds like a lateral move to me, not a genuine improvement. I am struck about how necessary a philosophical, even religous, underpinning is for someone that wants to do science. Without such, we focus too much on the specifics without putting in into some sort of greater context.
Do we do science to conquer nature or to understand it and harmonize with it? Are their different points to do one and not the other? Is nature as it should be, or is it somehow wrong? Is there some science we simply should not do?
This last question is, I think, a very real one for Christians, particularly in medicine and the biological sciences. As Christians, our goal in science is to discover more about God by discovering how His creation works. As the painting reflects the painter, so creation reflects our Lord. And yet, increasingly some science, primarily reproductive science, seeks not to manipulate God's created order, but to defy it. Granting genetic children to a homosexual couple is an excellent example of just such defiance of God's created order.
I am not familiar with many Christian science-types asking questions like this. Oh there are many that simply refuse to do certain work, much to their credit, but are there conferences? Where are the scientists on seminary faculties working with the philosophers and theologians to ask these questions and define these boundaries? Most universities have severed ties with seminaries and divinity schools, in some cases prescisely to avoid the kind of intereaction I propose here. Is it time for seminaries to add science departments? There are some institutes and other academic institutions, but they are few, they struggle for funding and noteriety.
I love science, I love knowing how the universe works, mostly because I love my Lord. Frankly, in my school days when much of this kind of stuff was imagined, but not yet realized, I assumed God had cleverly erected barriers in His creation that would prevent us from achieving such usurption of His place in the universe. I underestimated God's willingness to let us sink into sin and His desire to have us come to Him of our own violition.
Science and faith have to come together somehow, somewhere. Not merely in the lives of faithful scientists, but in the institutions of religion and learning. There is simply too much at stake.
Related Tags: science, religion, biology, seminary, university, reproduction
