Anti-Science Christians Major in Minors

Ann Althouse cites evangelist Ken Ham's utter condemnation of science in an appearance before elementary school students. I respond:

Stuff like this makes me cringe as a Christian and a pastor. I think that for one thing, Mr. Ham is majoring in the minors.

Historically, when the Church has summarized the core beliefs that anyone who claims to be Christian must adhere to, questions like when and how the universe came into being have been left to science. The Bible and historic Christian faith have been more interested in who created the universe and why.

Check out the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, for example, two summaries of Christian faith that are universally accepted by the Church. They simply affirm that God created. Nothing more is needed. [The sparseness of the Confessions' affirmation of God's creation of the universe] may [tacitly] acknowledge the fact that the Old Testament contains six different accounts of creation, most notably the two different versions that appear at the very beginning of Genesis.

In the first, starting at Genesis 1:1, God's Spirit moves over a roaring, stormy ocean of chaos and makes life, culminating in the creation of people. In the second account, [found] in Genesis 2 and 3, the primordial stuff from which God creates is a desert and Adam is the first creature brought into being.

Unless one assumes that the authors, editors, and original readers of the complex literature that composes Genesis were complete dolts, we see that they wouldn't have been unaware of the intrinsic problem with an overly-literalistic interpretation of two accounts that differ on whether things started with an ocean or a desert.

When Christians have said that the Bible is God's Word, we've never meant that God or an angel dictated the precise words to...Biblical writers acting as human tape recorders. It's the Muslims and Mormons who have said this of their holy books.

Christians, in contrast, have said that the Bible is "inspired." (Or as a literal interpretation of Second Timothy puts it, "God-breathed.") That means that God has always spoken to people through the media of people, using their experiences and vocabulary. In order to reach us, God has been required to use this method to speak what for Him amounts to "baby talk."

As Mr. Ham says, no human being could have been there at the beginning of God's creation. But using terms and notions human beings might understand, the Biblical writers were inspired by God to affirm that God created the universe. With this understanding, it's okay for Christians to think that paleontology, biology, and other scientific disciplines, though finite and as prone to error as any other human pursuit, might have something to say about the when and how of Creation.

Of course, for the Christian, the core of the Bible's message is summarized in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." That's the major on which we Christians should major. Everything else, by comparison, is unimportant.

I'm fairly conservative when it comes to the Bible. I believe that there were an Adam and Eve, that Jonah was really swallowed by a great fish, that God made a way for His people through the foaming sea, that Jesus turned water into wine, and that Jesus rose from the dead. But some things are essential for salvation and a relationship with God and other things aren't.

Even if I believed that the the Biblical writers were cosmic tape recorders, I wouldn't bother disagreeing with science--other than challenging those scientists who illogically argue that because of their observations of the natural order, there is no God. Our job as Christians and as part of Christ's Church, is to introduce people to Jesus Christ and welcome them into our family of recovering sinners. Everything else is self-aggrandizement, I fear.

I know, because I've been a terrible self-aggrandizer, majoring in other minors more than I like to remember!

UPDATE: You might also be interested in this piece, written last December.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ambivablog cites a statement from Pope Benedict in which he asserts, rightly I believe, that there is no essential conflict between Christian belief and science. Also see here for a fuller treatment of the Pope's thoughts on this subject from Catholic Online.