Wow @cootsona, what a feast you’ve brought us here. Let me highlight a few things, and ask some follow up questions.
So @Cootsona and @Patrick I want to translate here a bit between to worlds. It took me a bit to understand what you are saying here, because it sounds at face value to conflict with some strict rules in science to clearly delineate between science and theology. See the The Rules of the Game. It is extremely important for science students and scientists to play by these rules, or there can be serious repercussions.
However, reading closer that concern was alleviate. You are not actually meaning “intermingle” as understand it. Instead, a better way to explain it is an “exchange” or “dialogue,” where both are still kept independent. One can follow the rules of keeping a sharp line between what is and isn’t science vs. theology, Still, in science, we can take questions that arise in theology seriously. That language, of “dialogue” or “exchange”, is clearer than “intermingle.”
The diagram is focused on physics example, which might reduce the controversy a bit by avoiding biology. I think this really made clear what you were getting it, clarifying what you meant. By the way, this is really good. Can we post that here? Is it public or private? Or is it somewhere else in the web?
Yes, I’ve heard of this. I suppose this may come down to how we understand “infallibility” (not inerrancy here). I’m very reticent to challenge traditional doctrine, especially when the conflict is merely perceived, not real. Of course, as a protestant, I’m fairly disconnected from traditional theology, so I mean this as principle not a precise statement of doctrine. Rather, I’m not sure historically important things consistently understood in the church for 1800 years should be altered without being entirely sure it is necessary.
As a person who straddles the two, technology and science, I’d want to press on this. I agree that young adults are immersed in technology, and this is their starting point. Science, however, is not reducible to technology, and at times is a humanizing corrective to technology. To give a few examples (that are certainly simplifications):
-
Technology tends to be instrumentalized for pragmatic purposes (app like thinking), but science cares about understanding as an end of itself, regardless of whether it is useful or not.
-
Technology work is often competency driven, but science is primarily taught (at the highest levels) by apprenticeship, in a highly human process.
-
Technology is driven progress and revision of current norms, but science is surprisingly connected to tradition, connection to community, and a tacit but revered history.
-
Technology can be about engaging big problems, but science at its best is about engaging grand question.
Of course technology is important and it is symbiotic with science. For the young adults I work with, however, there is a correct in the distinctives of science. At least in my context, as a scientist, I do start from the technologically driven audience, but understand science as a humanizing corrective to technology.
That being said, I think we are all figuring out this specific cultural shift right now. This is, at best, only a part of the puzzle. Perhaps also I’m in a different position as a scientist myself.
Aslan is not safe. He is wild.
I like this excerpt a great deal. Thank you. This is a good book too. I’m going to be encouraging people to read it. I’ve seen this first hand too…
I’ve had similar responses to my work from students. Often campus staff, for example, are reticent to engage their students with science. I wonder if it is partly because the origins debate has become so contentious. How you been able to help other ministry leaders, especially if they do not have training here, to engage in this area?