Karl Giberson is an and a physics professor at an Evangelical Christian university (Eastern Nazarene College), he also accepts Darwin's theory of evolution as the best scientific description for how life on Earth came to be the way it is. While many Evangelical Christians see acceptance of evolution to be in conflict with the Christian faith, many others such as Giberson are capable of integrating an understanding and acceptance of evolution with their Christian faith.When I picked up Giberson's book Saving Darwin, I anticipated it would follow much the same format and cover much of the same material as any number of other decent books examining the relationthisp between science and faith from a Christian perspective. That is to say that I anticipated it would demonstrate why evolution is good science, why objections to evolution are not, and how he conceptualizes his faith in light of evolution. However, Giberson takes a slightly different approach to discussing the 'conflict' between faith and science, which ultimately kept the book interesting while discussing the elements essential for such a book to be informative, and provided a longer discussion than most of the history behind the 'conflict'.
Giberson approaches the discussion of evolution and faith from a historical perspective, providing insights into the early religious objections that began as a fringe opinion among the Seventh Day Adventist sect. These objections became canonized around the turn of the 20th century during the rise of Christian fundamentalism, and have been around in great number among Evangelical Christians ever since. At the time of the publication 'The Fundamentals' pamphlet series, which defined fundamentalism for generations to come, Giberson points out that discussion of the dangers of evolution was generally coming from isolated sects of believers, and it received scant mention in 'The Fundamentals'. He suggests this is due to an understanding by the authors of 'The Fundamentals' that the issue of evolution was not critical to the Christian faith, and perhaps also due to a general acceptance of evolution as the scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Without a lot of reading into this history, I'm not entirely sure how valid this interpretation is, but I have my doubts about the marginal nature of creationist objections to evolution.
Giberson makes sure to assert the scientific validity of Darwin's theory of evolution and to point out the flaws in the main objections to Darwin's theory, he tends to offer a patient and sympathetic critique of such objections rather than simply dismissing them as intellectually dishonest positions promoted by religious crackpots who don't bother to understand the scientific method. My initial feeling was that he was probably going a little bit easy on them, but given that the purpose of the book is to promote understanding and acceptance of evolution among Evangelical Christians by demonstrating that Christianity need not be at odds with the scientific understanding of evolution, his tone makes sense.
While Giberson is careful not to step on the toes of his religious brethren who object to evolution, he is slightly more critical of those non-religious scientists who are openly critical of religion as a kind of poison to society. Giberson accurately states that the limitations in the scope of scientific inquiry make it impossible to obtain definitive scientific answers about concepts that are outside the realm of material existence, concepts such as God. However, the tone of his criticisms directed toward authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Jay Gould seems to suggest the often ugly tone of the conversation about faith and science has come primarily from the non-religious end of the spectrum. Although I share a similar religious background as Giberson, I've always felt that the negative tone started from the religious side. The reality is probably that all along the way there has been overly negative posturing from both sides of the debate coupled with ad hominem attacks and over generalized conclusions.
The final part of the book, that part typically reserved for a demonstration of how one might reconcile their faith with their scientific understanding, doesn't ever really get off the ground. The subtitle of the book 'How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution' is never directly addressed, which I find slightly odd and a somewhat disappointing aspect of this book. Giberson does discuss the flaws he sees with the theology behind young earth creationism and intelligent design, but he doesn't provide a framework by which one could begin to understand how he conceives of God. It is obvious throughout the book that his faith at one time tended towards a fundamentalist reading of the Bible and, while sometimes difficult, along the way he's been able to accomodate his understanding of science and evolution without abandoning his faith, but he isn't clear how he determines the degree to which he reads the Bible 'literally', what attributes he ascribes to God, or how he understands central Christian assertions (such as Jesus' resurrection) that appear to defy scientific understanding. Perhaps the reality is that when discussing theological assertions, there is clear manner of parsing verifiable truth from myth, or perhaps Giberson himself doesn't feel that such a grand task is within the scope of his book.
2 comments:
It is curious that Giberson neglects to elucidate how one is able to reconcile being a Christian and proponent for evolutionary science, particularly given the book's subtitle. Perhaps he feels he is testament enough to the possibility. At risk of being identified as a theological elitist by the hordes that will read my comment, a more likely explanation may be had: namely, that Giberson lacks the theological expertise and acumen to cogently write on the matter. Admittedly, I know little more of Giberson than a basic google search will identify. However, it is not clear to me that Giberson has any formal theological training.
Before being accused of an ivory tower elitist by the hordes, let me explain. I have read books about physics (or, properly stated: listened to audio books about physics). I have engage in numerous conversations with physicists. I am interested in how our understanding of physics impacts the world (including the supposed potential for the creation of black holes by particle accelerators). I attend the University of Waterloo, which means I was close in proximity to the Perimeter Institute. Despite all of this, I am no physicists. Were I to write a book about physics, I would likely find myself lacking sufficient understanding to add meaningful material to the existing and ongoing debate. Similarly, Giberson, lacking theological training, may find himself at an impasse. He may be very intelligent, and may be articulate and aware - but he isn't a theologian. Many seem to think these days that having an opinion about theology and being interested by theology is sufficient grounds for writing theology. Now, to be sure, one doesn't need theological education to think theologically. At its basic, theology is the enterprise of thinking/speaking of God. However, if being interested in a subject isn't sufficient for becoming a qualified physicist, how can it be any different for theology? The likes of Dawkins, Hitches, Harris and, unfortunately, the likes of Hybels, Warren and (dare I say it?) Lewis, are not theologians. They lack a comprehensive and critical understanding.
Perhaps Giberson is merely honouring the field of theologians and not feigning expertise.
Great point. Given his background attending an Evangelical Christian (perhaps fundamentalist) Christian university and his current post at one, my guess is that he (like me) has probably had a limited amount of undergraduate coursework in Theology primarily aimed at teaching the core doctrines of his particular denomination. On top of that the quality of that theological training may be questionable, as I would say the quality of my own theological training is questionable, or at least shallow.
I would guess you're at least partly (or mostly) right that his ability to write about theology with any cogency is likely not at the level of someone with more formal education in the area. However, It's difficult to ascertain his level of self awareness regarding this limitation, particularly given his books subtitle. One possibility I did consider regarding the subtitle was that it might have been an editorial choice by the publisher (HarperOne - owned by Newscorp) designed to achieve maximum marketability, rather than a choice by the author intended to describe the actual contents of the book.
Post a Comment