These theses provide insights into the mindset of a good number of conservative Christians. My goal here is to inform rather than persuade. My greatest concern, as an evolutionary creationist, is to convince conservative Christians that theology needs to be a work in progress rather than a fait accompli. I’m not out to defend these views, but to do my best to let folks know what their conservative co-worker, relative or acquaintance believes. My book and website and many of the papers I post on academia.edu are trying to tell these folks that the wall they have built around their faith to protect it simultaneously acts to block important new information, scientific or otherwise, from their consideration.
2 Likes
Natural theology, in terms of the theology being expressed in these theses, is seen as an insufficient basis on which to build a systematic theology. The scriptures, on the other hand, according to a conservative Christian point of view, are authoritative, trustworthy, inspired and inerrant. Theologian Peter Enns has written a book titled The Sin of Certainty where he points out the danger of being certain of what is not actually true. My pro-science book and website encourage a willingness on the part of conservative Christians to step outside their ideological bubble long enough to fairly consider the evidence to support the scientific consensus on various issues. Sufficient to say, in the context of a book or a website, that those who could gain most by taking on a pro-science viewpoint are least likely to do so.
1 Like
Theologians dictate what the Scriptures “really” mean (no matter what the Scripture actually says) just as they dictate the “real” facts (no matter what reality might show). Doctrine overrules Scripture (and anything else that might get in the way).
But really, in what way(s) is that theologically conservative? Isn’t it radical to claim to possess absolute truth? Isn’t it truly more conservative to accept that there are mysteries?
Thanks for clarifying. What I take from your comment, then, is that it is practically impossible to convince a conservative Christian to change his mind, since he holds things as absolute truth in the absence of any epistemic method, like science, that can be used to verify their truth.
It would be like trying to use logic to persuade someone they don’t have a mother. No matter how convincing the argument seems to be, you would know it is unsound because you know there is no way you could not have a mother.
Three more theses from Pastor Bill Cwirla’s unpublished document “Twenty-Four Theses on Science and Theology” – a document intended to foster discussion of some of the basic issues in the science / faith dialog. I would encourage any individuals associated with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, or my own denomination, Lutheran Church - Canada, to share their thoughts as well.
Thesis 10 - Scientific method is an ongoing work. Scientific theories change and are even supplanted by the acquisition of new data. While science may settle on a particular mechanism or model for a long time, science is never truly settled. It is always open to the acquisition of new data and reinterpretation of existing data.
Thesis 11 - Theology also is an ongoing work, as each generation, indeed every Christian, interprets the scripture and proclaims its theological significance into the contemporary culture. Science changes, worldviews change, cultures change, but the word of the Lord endures forever.
Thesis 12 - Young Earth Creationism, (YEC, “Answers in Genesis”) presents a valid reading of the creation texts in their literal sense according to the ordinary rules of interpretation, but it presupposes that these texts are able to critique scientific theory, method, and data interpretation, and to provide additional data and alternative mechanisms unknown to the sciences of cosmology, geology and biology. However, scripture is not given to evaluate or critique a scientific theory, since scripture is written from the perspective of ancient, not modern science. The Bible is not a textbook of 'creation science," but the revelation of God alone as creator and redeemer of the world. The scripture’s expression of the doctrine of creation is in the scientific terms of the ancient world, not the modern world.
2 Likes
A quibble: Science isn’t blind to the supernatural, but requires material evidence. For instance, there have been clinical trials done on the power of prayer for healing.
No such study has found any material effect, so far. 
That’s a one-liner to remember!
1 Like
The God Whisperers podcast was hosted by two Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod pastors, the aforementioned Bill Cwirla and Craig DeNofrio. Back in October of 2018 I was interviewed on the podcast. It’s just over an hour long, but if you can take the time, you will learn a lot about the views of these two pastors and will hear me lay out my position on the science and faith discussion which is dealt with in detail in Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science and on my website www.evolvingcertainties.com The podcast is here … https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/craig-donofrio7/episodes/345—Evolving-Certainties-e1d3rjg
Dan, I would suggest the word “agnostic” in the place of “blind.”
2 Likes
I realise you were quoting the original. 
The word radical typically has a different connotation on the right than it does on the left. It may mean strong encouragement for left-leaning change. Or it may mean zealous partisanship. Absolute truth is attractive to conservatives because, generally speaking, they tend to be quite uncomfortable with ambiguity.
1 Like
Theists can certainly have a time with authority and groupthink, but you type this as if this particular human phenomenon is not also at work in Science to a similar degree - if not moreso (given the state of disbelief in certain elevated circles of society). Next you’ll be telling me that at the origin of life, “RNA can carry information just like DNA and be a catalyst at the same time!!”
I mean that some branches of Christianity let their doctrines dictate their interpretation of scripture 9while insisting otherwise) and also cause them to invent stories to explain away discrepancies - and to pass those stories off as facts,
I do not think that science goes to those extremes.
Of course it does.
@hello @appsandorgs , and welcome to Peaceful Science.
Can you tell us a little about yourself and what brought you here?
Maybe you can expand on that a bit? Such a wide open statement like that is easy to misinterpret.
1 Like
Pastor Bill Cwirla’s theses on Old Earth Creationism, Evolutionary Creationism and a few comments about “Creation Science.”
Thesis 13 - Old Earth Creationism (OEC, “Reason to Believe”) agrees with modern science that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. But in order to bring science and Scripture into concord, it must define “day” in the Hexaemeron as “age,” which is not a valid meaning for day within the context of Genesis 1. Genesis clearly presents a week of ordinary days not a series of ages. Like YEC, OEC wants to fit the Genesis week of days into the greater scheme of natural history. Furthermore, while OEC acknowledges a geologically old earth, it dogmatically asserts “miracle” as the mechanism for creation. To invoke miracle as an explanation is to place it outside the purview of scientific inquiry; it is a scientific dead end. While attempts to harmonize science and Scripture may be well-intentioned and ofttimes creative, Scripture must interpret Scripture, not science. And science must interpret science, not Scripture.
Thesis 14 - Evolutionary Creationism (EC, “BioLogos”) believes and confesses God as the Creator of the world regardless of scientific theories about the world’s creation. Evolutionary Creationism affirms evolution as the prevailing and currently settled scientific theory that stands or falls on scientific evidence alone while at the same time does not challenge the doctrine that God is the Creator of all things. EC holds that the theory evolution is not incompatible with the doctrine of creation or the creation texts of Scripture, when they are interpreted as a theological framework for understanding the natural world rather than as a revealed natural history of the world. Essentially, evolutionary creationism is the science of evolution (or whatever theory science may propose) and the theology of Scripture in parallel vocations, non-overlapping vocations. In this way, evolutionary creationism rescues science from philosophical naturalism (“scientism”) or atheism, even as it guards against biblicism, that is, making the Bible the source of scientific knowledge.
Thesis 15 - Creation Science - The inherent danger of “creation science” (whether old or young earth) is the imposition of an ancient view of the world on a modern scientific world (young earth) or the imposition of a modern view on the ancient world (old earth). The science of the Scriptures is that of the 2nd millennium BC and the 1st century AD not our 21st century. The ancients knew nothing of modern astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics. Their view of the world was experiential as they watched the sun rise and set. To impose a modern scientific view on Scripture brings Scripture under the scrutiny of modern scientific method and leads to its being discredited in modern culture. St. Augustine already warned us of this in the 4th century. For example, when the Bible says that the hare and rock badger “chew the cud” or that the sun, moon, and stars race across the firmament around a fixed Earth, these are scientifically incorrect by today’s standards but were perfectly correct at the time they were written.
2 Likes
Pastor Bill Cwirla’s Theses 16, 17, and 18 – In thesis 16, I suggest that rather than saying “blind to the supernatural,” it would be helpful to say “agnostic to the supernatural.”
Thesis 16
The inherent danger of scientific method (methodological naturalism) is that it is definitionally a-theistic and easily leads to metaphysical or philosophical naturalism (“scientism”), that is, exchanging the creation for the Creator (Rom 1), which is idolatry. Science is blind to the supernatural, and limits itself to natural causes and effects. Therefore, it is always at risk of being coopted by skeptical atheism. The task of theology is to remind science that there is a Creator behind the natural order and there is more to the world than meets the scientific eye.
Thesis 17
The threat to both science and theology is not ideas but ideology, the dogmatization of theories or interpretations. Evolution is no more a threat to theology than a young earth six- day schema of creation is to science, provided these do not become dogmatic ideologies at war with each other. The natural world makes sense when viewed through the lens of scientific method, and one need not deny reason and senses in order to believe in the existence of a Creator. Holy Scripture makes sense when read theologically and Christocentrically according the ordinary rules of text interpretation in its historic context and culture. An historical-grammatical reading of the Scriptures, including the creation texts, does not threaten the theological significance of the text but ensures that we do not impose our modern scientific view of the world on an ancient text.
Thesis 18
Science and Scripture are God’s gifts in the first and third articles of the Creed. These should not be set against each other or harmonized with one another but are best left to what is proper to their vocation. Scripture interprets Scripture; Science interprets Science. Much of the animosity and anxiety of today’s conversation are due to futile attempts to set Scripture against Science or to make them speak in harmony rather than letting each have its proper place and say.
There’s the problem. How does theology do this, other than by blatant assertion? Where is the evidence supporting any particular theological position? I suppose if we assume that scripture is divinely inspired, as presumably does Cwirla, we can accept the bible as evidence. But that seems more or less like assuming the consequent.
1 Like
Because this deserves still more emphasis.
1 Like