VancouverSun: Religion & Science are Compatible, Award Winner Says

[Ellis]

Known among scientists as the Renaissance man of evolutionary biology, Francisco J. Ayala has won this year's prestigious and lucrative Templeton Prize for his life's work arguing that science and religion are compatible.

After being named the winner of the world's largest academic award at a news conference in Washington, D.C., Thursday, the California-based biologist and philosopher described the ever polarizing approaches to life as merely two windows into the same world.

"I contend that science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction ... if they are properly understood," he said.

While science looks at how the planets move, the composition of matter and the origin of species, religion focuses on the relationship between people and their creator, moral values and the meaning of life.

"It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that religion and science, and evolutionary theory in particular, appear to be antithetical," he said.

Ayala goes a step further, asserting that the theory of evolution is more in concert with a religious belief in an omnipotent and benevolent God than the tenets of Creationism and intelligent design.

"The natural world abounds in catastrophes, disasters, imperfections, dysfunctions, suffering and cruelty," he said.

"People of faith should not attribute all this misery, cruelty and destruction to the specific design of the creator. I rather see it as a consequence of the clumsy ways of nature and the evolutionary process."

CLICK LINK FOR REST OF ARTICLE: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Religion%20science%20compatible%20award%20winner%20says/2728253/story.html

[Destino]

Of course they are. The problem is people don't want them to be. Religious people don't want to change their thinking in any way and Atheists desperately want science to be used as a weapon to strike at their religious foes.

[HailYeah]

Any two stories can be considered compatible if they are both incomplete.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Any two stories can be considered compatible if they are both properly understood.

Fixed it fer ya.

BTW, I've been saying that science and theology are compatible for years, where's my award!?:mad:

Why is it that when a scientist says this he gets an article, but when a pastor says it he's told to resign?

[Unforgiven]

I'm not seeing the compatibility here....

The story of creation in Genesis does not go hand in hand with Evolution.

I get the logic that if you look at the grand scheme of things you can find common ground, but if you start looking at specifics and you take the Bible to be literal (again, story of creation) then it doesn't jive.

[Midnight Judges]

They work just fine so long as your interpretation of the Bible is symbolic and not literal.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm not seeing the compatibility here....

The story of creation in Genesis does not go hand in hand with Evolution.

I get the logic that if you look at the grand scheme of things you can find common ground, but if you start looking at specifics and you take the Bible to be literal (again, story of creation) then it doesn't jive.

Of course that is unless Moses simply had no other words to describe 1 billion years so he said a day.

[Burgold]

I think what he's getting it is a useful point. Science need to be objective and quantifiable, but it's also useful for it to be constrained by ethics and morality to be of best use to mankind.

[GibbsFactor]

I think what he's getting it is a useful point. Science need to be objective and quantifiable, but it's also useful for it to be constrained by ethics and morality to be of best use to mankind.

I think it's simple. Science is the how, Religion is the why. Religion is more philosophical and deals in metaphysics. When you start to cross each other you get the problems. They are two different things. But... religion is older then science. Religion crossed over into science long before the latter. So you have issues due to the wording in Abrahamic religions crossing over before science was established. Now you sit here with a disproved hypothesis. It's easier to say science is wrong. Cause science ain't promising you eternal life.

Take Islam, the main point in that religion is that they have Allah's words. Word for word. That book is his word. Muhammad just wrote what he was instructed to write. What happens if that gets proven wrong? If something just is not true in that book? Does that mean the entire book is wrong?

That's the debate. If Genesis is wrong, everything probably is. That is the fear of the religious. No chance the bible is wrong, so science must be. But in all actuality, they aren't even talking about the same things. Science stays clear of metaphysics and philosophy for a reason.

[Corcaigh]

Just to clarify, this prize from the Templeton Foundation is for religious apologetics, and has nothing to do with science.

And science and religion won't be in conflict if religion doesn't make false claims about the natural world. Science has nothing to say about supernatural beings because they are outside natural laws.

[No_Pressure]

I have a professor right now who was has been the biology department head for something like 55 years. He's extremely smart and makes class fun. He's also a devout Catholic. He told us his first class that religion is hope and faith, science is fact and measurable theory and that this isn't a religion class it's a science class so if you have a problem dealing with facts of the natural world as we can observe them because it isn't convenient to some sort of belief system you have, get over it or drop the class.

It's been a great class so far this semester.

[HailYeah]

Fixed it fer ya.

BTW, I've been saying that science and theology are compatible for years, where's my award!?:mad:

Why is it that when a scientist says this he gets an article, but when a pastor says it he's told to resign?

I would argue that "properly" is mighty subjective. The point is that the human species does not wholly understand either science or religion, IMO. They are a work in progress, and thus they are incomplete. And can be considered compatible, if we'd like.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not seeing the compatibility here....

The story of creation in Genesis does not go hand in hand with Evolution.

I get the logic that if you look at the grand scheme of things you can find common ground, but if you start looking at specifics and you take the Bible to be literal (again, story of creation) then it doesn't jive.

Well considering Origen didn't even read the creation accounts as literal then maybe there is something to be said for reading them another way.

[techboy]

The story of creation in Genesis does not go hand in hand with Evolution.

If you take it absolutely literally, that is true. The Bible, however, is a set of 66 different texts, written over many years, in many different genres, and should be treated as such. Certain genres and contexts should not be read as literal history (Jesus' parables being one easy example). The person who forces literalism on non-literal texts is a hyper-literalist, a trait that can be found in fundamentalists of the religious and non-religious variety.

With respect to Genesis, there are a number of different and legitimate views that can be taken.

1. Young Earth Creationism- This takes the Earth to be roughly 11,000 years old, and involves reading "Yom" in Hebrew as a literal day, no gaps in the geneaology, literal readings of everything, and so on. This is not compatible with either the scientific findings of the age of the Earth or Evolution.

2. Old Earth Creationism- This holds that the Earth is billions of years old, as it appears to be, but that Genesis is still history. The Days of Genesis: An Old-Earth View by Dr. Paul Copan is a pretty good overview of a coherent view that can treat Genesis as history but still hold to an Old Earth Creationist position. A couple of excerpts that are relevant to this discussion:

But many careful evangelical exegetes such as Gleason Archer, Craig Blomberg, Walter Kaiser, Craig Keener, Derek Kidner, Kenneth Mathews, Vern Poythress, Bruce Waltke (to name a few) have observed from the text itself that the word “day [yôm]” in Genesis 1-2 hardly entails a 24-hour time period; the text is more generous than this.

Those are some big names right there...

As for the meaning of “day” in Gen. 1, Beeson Divinity School’s Kenneth Mathews correctly observes: “there are many indications that ‘day’ in its customary sense may not be intended.”ix Here are some:

(1) Those who take a young-earth view typically claim that the ordinal (e.g., second, third) with yôm (day) is always a literal 24-hour day. But this isn’t so. Take the restoration passage of Hosea 6:2: “[The LORD] will raise us up on the third day”—a phrase identical to Gen 1:13; this case presents a clear exception. Interestingly, Luke 13:32 reads,x “Go and tell [Herod], ‘Behold, I [Jesus] cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third [day] I reach my goal.” Clearly something other than a 24-hour day is in mind here (see also Ps. 90:4, where human life is like a “day [yôm]”; 2 Pet. 3:8).

(2) The phrase “day one [yôm echad]” in Gen. 1:5 is also found in Zech. 14:7, referring to “the day of the LORD”—clearly not a 24-hour day.

(3)Genesis 2:4 reads “in the day [yôm] the LORD God made earth and heaven”—referring to the entire act of creation. So within the text of Genesis 1-2 itself, we have clear indication that “day” can mean more than 24 hours.

(4) “Evening” is mentioned before “morning” throughout Gen. 1; this

is an unusual rendering and suggests a sacramental and symbolic usage that points forward to Israel’s celebration of holy “days and months and years” (Gen. 1:14; Sabbath and Passover began the evening before).

(5) If the sun was not made until the fourth day, as young-earthers claim, then why think that the preceding days were 24-hours in length?

(6) “Evening”/“morning” isn’t mentioned on the seventh day, suggesting God’s complete rest from this initial creation is still continuing to this day (cp. Heb. 4:4: “God rested on the seventh day from all His works”)—a very long “day” of rest! If this final day can be more flexibly understood, then why can’t the others?

(7) Some say that Exodus 20:9-11 (“in six days the LORD made heaven and earth . . . and rested the seventh day”) demonstrates a literal 24-hour view of “day” in Gen. 1. However, the focus is on a divine pattern being set for humans to follow, but this doesn’t mean that all comparisons are equal. Consider 1 Jn. 3:16: Christ’s (unique atoning) laying-down-of-life sets a pattern for our (repeated, non-atoning) laying-down-of life for our brethren. Also, note that the fourth commandment is repeated in Ex. 31:12-17, which adds that God “was refreshed”—which isn’t to be taken literally (cp. Isa. 40:28). Why insist that “day” be taken as such?

(8) The third day calls

for a lengthy process of plants to grow, produce seeds, and yield fruit (Gen. 1:11-12); a 24-hour interpretation would require extremely rapid plant development, as in time-lapse photography in which a seed grows to full flower in seconds!

(9) The sixth day also requires more than 24-hours:

Adam names thousands of animals, gets acquainted with their mating habits, realizes he’s alone, etc., suggesting more than just 24 hours. And Adam’s cry at Eve’s arrival suggests significant passage of time—“At last! [happa`am]” (2:23). Note the same phrase used at Leah’s

4

“vindication” in childbearing “at last” (29:34-5); Jacob’s finally leaving Laban after fourteen years (30:20); Jacob’s finally departing this life having seen Joseph (46:30). (10) If Gen. 1-2 is a historico-poetic genre, then it is unfair to make unwarranted literary demands upon it (such as the ordinal + yôm configuration = 24 hours). Think of how wrong-headed it would be to insist that Revelation’s numbers be literalized for similar reasons, when this genre (apocalyptic-prophetic) is highly symbolic.

For these and other reasons, a high view of Scripture does not require holding to 24-hour days in Gen. 1; there is greater flexibility, which leaves wide open the possibility of an old-earth view. Furthermore, other plausible approaches—such as Sailhamer’s “textual creationism” (“day” as 24

hours) or the literary framework hypothesis—allow for an ancient universe as well.

This view is compatible with scientifc observations about the age of the Earth, but can contradict evolution, depending on how it's held (some that hold this also hold to evolution by suggesting that Adam and Eve were the first people with the divine spark, but that others came before. This does require a bit of allegory on the part of some of Genesis 1 and 2, and starts to spill into reading 3)

3. Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. Why Ms. B doesn’t think we need a historical Adam (Part 1) is a pretty good blog entry by a professor of Historical Theology on this very topic. If you like it, you might look a a couple of his follow-up posts.

Regardless, though some might think that a non-literal reading of Genesis was spurred as a desperate reaction to Charles Darwin and advancing science, there have been different perspectives about how to read Genesis 1 and 2 from the very beginning of the Church.

Francis S. Collins (of the Human Genome Project, now director of NIH) started a group called Biologos (good website for another perspective on how to read Genesis), and their website has this article: How was the Genesis creation story interpreted before Darwin?. An excerpt:

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt — one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world — provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presents the main doctrines of Christianity and defends them against pagan accusations. On First Principles offers the following perspective on the Genesis creation story:

"What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? […] I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history." 1

Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.2

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, is another central figure of the period, Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1-2.3 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.4

"Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding. … The narrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children." 5

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.6

[techboy]

Just to clarify, this prize from the Templeton Foundation is for religious apologetics, and has nothing to do with science.

Just to clarify further, he's fairly well decorated for his work in science, too.

[Corcaigh]

Just to clarify further, he's fairly well decorated for his work in science, too.

Yup ... but the Templeton award isn't considered prestigious in scientific circles. Quite the contrary to some.

[Destino]

Yup ... but the Templeton award isn't considered prestigious in scientific circles. Quite the contrary to some.

Is it because of the nature of the award or because these "some" happen to be outspoken (I'm being polite) atheists?

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Is it because of the nature of the award or because these "some" happen to be outspoken (I'm being polite) atheists?

I'm guessing, but when I read the article I got the impression that it was because the nature of the award. The article mentioned that the award was specifically designed to "always be more monetary value than the Nobel" because it was "more important" than mere science. I got the impression that scientists look down on the award because it's trying to "out do" them.

[Thiebear]

Every 1000 years or so science is looked back at an everyone gets a good laugh.

Religion takes a little longer with romans vs. athens vs Vikings on who was right.

[Corcaigh]

Is it because of the nature of the award or because these "some" happen to be outspoken (I'm being polite) atheists?

It's an award for religious apologetics. It has nothing to do with science.

One of the purposes of the Templeton foundation is to blur the line between the two, which helps neither, and leads to pseudo-science.

[Corcaigh]

I got the impression that scientists look down on the award because it's trying to "out do" them.

The award essentially is "If you are a well respected scientist and say something nice about religion, we'll give you a ton of cash".

[techboy]

The award essentially is "If you are a well respected scientist and say something nice about religion, we'll give you a ton of cash".

I don't think it's even that. It would appear to not really be about science or any particular religion at all. Here's the description:

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Established in 1972 by the late Sir John Templeton, the Prize aims, in his words, to identify “entrepreneurs of the spirit”—outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality. The Prize celebrates no particular faith tradition or notion of God, but rather the quest for progress in humanity’s efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine.

Past winners include Mother Theresa, Bill Bright, and Chuck Colson, hardly leading lights in science.

My suspicion is that they've given it to scientists recently because it helps their agenda. The 2007 award winner, Charles Taylor, doesn't appear to be a scientist either, though.

[Corcaigh]

I don't think it's even that. It would appear to not really be about science or any particular religion at all.

Well ... Obama won the Nobel peace prize while placing hundreds of thousands of troops on foreign soil.

In recent years they have given it to scientists who offer up spiritual mumbo jumbo that makes Templeton feel good about themselves. :evilg:

[talk show host]

True religion and true science are 100% compatible.

Conflict between the two only arises because:

1) Science is essentially the pursuit of truth based primarly on observation of the observable universe. As mans understanding of the universe has evolved over time, so has science. What was held as scientific fact 500 years ago looks foolsih by todays standards. Similarly, in 500 years, man will understand infinately more about the universe than it does now.

2) there are thousands of religions which teach contradictory doctrines. They can't all be true, so atleast some, if not most, of them teach lies.

Over time, the two should harmonize. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from Isaac Asimov:

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You had better rearrange your beleifs, then, because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.