Creation, Evolution, and Faith, Part 1: Terms & Models

These days, the so-called "Creation-Science" debate is everywhere.  Whether it's on the lips of Ham and Nye or Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens, the basic ideas are the same:

Evolution and the Bible aren't compatible.  

You can't "believe in the Bible" and "believe in evolution" at the same time.

But I disagree.  Personally, I don't take my Ham on Nye (a-thank you!). In this four-part Theology Thursday series, I'll look at the problem, challenge the idea that there's a debate, and present my own view. This week, we're just mapping the terrain - looking at the terms and possible ways science and religion might interact.
The real fun will start next Thursday, so stay tuned!

But first, it's important to get the terms right.  Just so we're on the same page, here's what I'll call the people and ideas involved:

1. Creationism/Creationist:  The belief (or someone who believes) that the world was created exactly as recounted in the Book of Genesis. 
2. Hard Materialist:  Someone who believes everything can be reduced to physical processes, leaving no room for God.
3. Intelligent Design:  The belief that there's a "divine plan" or "blueprint" for the cosmos. This blueprint "unfolds" through the evolutionary process, according to God's will.

A really helpful thinker for understanding what's going on and what's at stake in this 'debate' - if, as we'll see, it is a debate at all - is a British philosopher named Ian Barbour (or "called" Ian Barbour, if you're British). Barbour writes about four ways of understanding the interaction of science and religion. They go like this:

1. Conflict: Religion and science are totally incompatible, each one's "data" disproving the other's in an either-or way. The Bible proves evolution wrong, and evolutionary science proves the Bible wrong. It's religion or science. This is the way most people think of the interaction of science and religion.  Examples include Creationism and Hard Materialism.
2. Independence: Religion and science are incompatible, but they should each just do their own thing and not worry about the other. They serve different purposes and have different ways of doing things. They're not the same, and shouldn't be thought of as the same.
3. Dialogue: Science and religion are neither incompatible nor totally compatible.  They do have different purposes and ways of doing things, but they both look at the same world, and they should talk about that world together while respecting each other's limits and methods. They shouldn't try to prove one another wrong, because they can't.
   
4. Integration: Religion and science are totally compatible, and their data "fit" one another, hand-in-glove. That means that science is discovering God's plan in nature, and we can see that, if we look closely at the data. Examples include Intelligent Design and Process Theology.

If you're really interested in this stuff, pick up Barbour's book, When Science Meets Religion. (You're welcome, Sir Ian.)

So, those are the basics. But which of these approaches makes the most sense? Which is the best way for talking about the way in which science and religion meet?

Find out in Part 2!  Click here.