Science versus religion - and Adam

I just read a paper I was sent called "Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople" by Tim Keller.  It is an interesting paper as it provides an apologetics framework for pastors as they deal with questions about the Bible and science from their parishioners or seekers.  Keller says "We (pastors) are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew."  I found this interesting in the light of the historical view where priests were seen as the bridge between God and the Laity....

Anyway, Keller has some insights into the nub of the problem between science and (literal Christian) religion:

1.To accept that science and religion are not fundamentally opposed, there is a need to accept that some parts of the Bible are not literal but metaphorical - but where does it stop?  And what does this do to the view of the absolute authority of the Bible? - so he argues that the writers give us clues as to how they meant their writing to be taken - and that it is a mix and in context.

2.The problem with accepting evolution as a biological process - is that then religion becomes a result of biology not from God - so he distinguishes between evolution as a biolgical process and evolution as a grand theory of everything.

3. If Adam and Eve weren't literal people, then the notion of the fall through one man and the basis for salvation becomes problematic - so he argues for scenarios of God intervening in the biological process in some way to set man apart.

4. If there was a biological evolution prior to Adam and Eve, then there was already death and suffering prior to the fall - so he argues that the "garden of eden" so to speak was set apart within this chaos - a foretaste of heaven.

While forgiving CS Lewis for seeing Adam and Eve metaphorically, Keller sees the reality of Adam as central to his Christian belief - despite a tacit acceptance of otherwise biological evolution.  He quotes a writer - Kidner - as saying: "What is quite clear....in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God's image, and fallen in Adam by one act of disobedience; and these things are strongly asserted in this understanding of God's word as on any other."  This appears to back up his own view.

Keller is very critical of Sam Harris (see previous blog) - because Sam Harris criticised the appointment of Francis Collins by saying..."Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"

His premise is that "we must interpret the book of nature by the book of God".  And herein lies the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and such a faith approach.  Science asks the questions and seeks answers which can be further tested and revised based on new knowledge.  Belief in the absolute authority and accuracy of Scripture, means that you view any new information through the lense and belief system of the scriptures.  It means walking on a tightrope where logic and rationality has to sometimes be suspended and common sense replaced by dogma.  It results in the conflicting situation of having to marry opposing scripture and having divine intervention in otherwise bioloigical processes.  Tying people in knots.

Surely truth is what even the Bible tells us "sets us free".  Truth is not threatened by honest inquiry and revision as new facts come to light.  Truth is  not about holding on to a set of premises which prevent honest inquiry.  I can't see that God would be phased at all by people honestly exploring their/His/Her world, testing, re-testing and making sense of what they find - even if it doesn't gel with what a group of people hold up to be the unassailable word of God.