2 of 2

Still, Gingerich defended the central role of science in comprehending reality: "The incarnation is a part of what Christians understand, that God took nature so seriously that he would inject himself into nature, and Christians should too. Science doesn't work by proof but by coherence."

BACK TO BASICS

As many expected, the formation of planet Earth became a major focus at the interdisciplinary discussion. Steve Meyer of Whitworth College questioned in his lecture "Intelligent Design and the Origin of Life" why biologists have so steadfastly resisted the idea of purposeful intelligence or design of the origin of life. The problem, he believes, is more philosophical. Although biologists demand specific evidence for design, "There are many theories in science that include unobservable evidence from which we derive indirect inferences."

Without design theorists, Meyer said, "historical biology is impoverished."

"Hogwash," responded Arthur Peacocke of Exeter College at Oxford and a principal in the Society of Ordained Scientists. Peacocke argued against Meyer's position, questioning the cultural and historical meaning of the design concept. Scripture is clear, Peacocke said, about who is Earth's creator. "Design is really an American question," Peacocke said. "The doctrine of creation is not about what happened at a certain time or a certain event. It's about the explanation of the existence of anything at all."

While the intellectual discussion continued, artistic interludes helped maintain an emotional connection. As novelist Larry Woiwode described it, "Scientists are discovering what exists; writers [and artists] are translating it into metaphor." Daily poetry readings, theater performances, exhibits, and concerts stirred new insights about scientific and theological issues.

Isham said, "It's a wonderful occasion where we have professionals arguing at the technical levels from a variety of disciplines, including the arts.

"The artists have given the whole debate a new dimension that is extremely helpful." Isham participated in a panel discussion between artists and scientists about the nature of their work. He confessed to a certain "terror" of the artist but admitted that his initial interest in physics was linked to a visual attraction to the shape of equations.

"There is something divine about human creativity," said Cambridge lecturer Barbara Reynolds. Her lecture on Dorothy L. Sayers, a Lewis contemporary, initiated the institute's subtheme of "Creature as Creator."

Such integration of art, science, and religion symbolizes an intriguing openness by contemporary Christian scholars to discuss subjects about which they often disagree. J. Stanley Mattson, president of the eight-year-old C. S. Lewis Foundation in California, believes, "If we can demonstrate among ourselves that we understand pluralism, then we might earn the right to return to our universities and be heard." The cooperative attempt also prompted a serious call, for Christians from Greek Orthodox bishop and Oxford scholar Kallistos Ware, to "take off our shoes, the dead leather of academic familiarity, and realize we stand on holy ground."

In coming years, Cambridge University will be a hotbed of debate between scientists and theologians. With a $1.5 million gift from popular novelist Susan Howatch, Cambridge has created a new academic chair for the study of science and theology. Although many theologians support the new chair, Richard Dawkins, a leading Oxford zoologist, has said theology "is a nonsubject, which should not in any sense be treated as an equal of science." Psychologist Fraser Watts, who will fill the new science-theology chair, has commented that he looks forward to challenging such scientific "bigotry."

Copyright 1994 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

September 12 1994, Vol. 38, No. 10