IN THEORY:

I know there are people out there who cannot accept both science and faith at the same time, but I don’t think I have met many of them. I applaud Dr. Collins work, his conclusions, and his faith. I may disagree with him in some areas, as I do with other pastors and scientists in our area, but I agree with him in his conclusions that “God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible.” If Christ-followers believe that God created this and all universes and that the design behind it is so obvious, then that design is explorable and discernable. That exploration and discernment is science. Radical scientists have said that if something is not repeatable, or as Princeton’s website says “falsifiable” then it cannot be deemed science. They also believe that we live in a closed system, meaning that there is nothing outside the realm of our reality (place “diety” here) capable of acting upon our system. Well, by those definitions, a miracle doesn’t even register on the books. They have to explain miracles like Jesus walking on the water by saying a freak ice storm formed a temporary ice-sheet on the water or that it was a myth. Personally, these scientific fundamentalists don’t bother me. Respected scientists like Dr.Collins, Dr. Dean Kenyon (professor emeritus at San Francisco State, and author of the book Biochemical Predestination , considered the iconic book on chemical evolution), Dr. Michael Behe (professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University), Dr. Scott Minnich (assoc. professor of microbiology at University of Idaho), Dr. Stephen Meyer, and many more fill the ranks of scientists who see too much design to be accidental.

I applaud their attempts to explore God’s creation and give him credit for it, in the face of the fascist responses they get from the scientists who shut out God. In a democracy, we should be allowed to have this discussion in public, but the fundamentalist scientists that oppose them often get as vehement as the fundamentalist people of faith who rage against the idea of science having anything of value to add to our culture. Both sides are wrong. You begin to get the idea that these extremists (on both ends) believe their faith systems (yes, scientific fundamentalism is a faith system) are too weak for criticism. My faith doesn’t stand or fall on scientific discovery. In fact, scientific discoveries often give me a greater appreciation for the power and creativity of the God I serve.

LEAD PASTOR RIC OLSEN

The Beacon

Anaheim

Both scientists and religious practitioners search for the truth. Curiosity, wonder and an appreciation for life spark both their endeavors. For mystics such as Teilhard de Chardin and scientists such as Einstein, study of the natural world reveals its deeper spiritual dimensions. Advances in science are not necessarily threats to religion.

When Copernicus proposed that the sun was at the center of the universe, this was a problem for theologians who premised their teachings about the human person, created in God’s image, on humanity’s unique placement among the planets. But teachings about the dignity of the human person and God’s love for creation did not actually require this view of the solar system in order to endure, and both science and theology were served by this advance in knowledge.

Many Christians, for example, Roman Catholics, see God’s presence in evolution. The Genesis account of creation is not interpreted literally as if it were an historical record, but is read as literature expressing poetically the hand of God in creation. Scientific research and religious teachings should constantly call for “reconciliation” with one another, for the benefit of each. Religion without science can be ignorant and superstitious; science without religion may be inhumane and destructive.

There is no conflict between science and Zen. Zen is based on observation and direct experience, not defense of beliefs or attachment to opinions. The Buddha was deliberately silent when asked about the afterlife or the source of the universe. His teaching focused upon the relief of suffering. This is expressed in the story about a person who has been shot in the leg by an arrow. What is needed is action to remove the arrow, stop the bleeding and help the wound to heal, not speculation or conversations about archery.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Somewhere in the not too distant past, science and religion took divergent paths. Science went the way of objective observation, theory and method, while religion took the path of myth, story, and revelation.

For quite some time the gap has grown along with the sense of distrust and — for some — disgust. And while it sounds like Collins might be a bridge between the two, I think his view of genesis as an allegory will not sit well with many Christians. Some Christians read the Bible as the inherent truth. There is no compromise that can possibly bridge this difference. For those who believe that humanity was created 10,000 year ago, there is no evolutionary compromise.

However, I do know that some Christians are trying to get public schools to buy into the intelligent design argument as a way of introducing creationism into the curriculum. I’m not necessarily against teaching creationism as a point of view, as long as we teach everyone’s point of view, and there are hundreds of different stories and myths about how this world was created. One of my favorites is a West African myth that says humanity sprung into existence when a drop of milk from a woman’s breast fell upon the ground. This myth and many others can be found in the “Dictionary of Creation Myths,” a book by Margaret Adams Leeming, published by Oxford University Press. My point is this: Although I respect all points of view in this debate, I still think that one’s spiritual beliefs and how it relates to science can best be reconciled within one’s own community. No one can claim exclusivity when it comes to public education. That is why we have separation between church and state. Not to stifle the discussion, but to keep it fair.

SENIOR PASTOR JIM TURRELLCenter for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

Today’s grammar school student knows more about the universe than history’s intellectual giants could have dreamt of knowing. Eighty percent of the scientists who ever lived are alive today. But there has not been a concomitant growth of the human spirit to match the pace of scientific advances.

If we can communicate with people across the globe, why can’t we communicate with spouses and children across the dinner table? If we can destroy the world in minutes, why can’t we heal societies in generations? If we can implant new organs, why can’t we be more sensitive of heart? If we can restore life, why can’t we be more appreciative of life? If we can travel millions of miles into the void, why can’t we travel a few feet to express love? If we can scale the heights of the universe, why can’t we plumb the depths of compassion on earth?

What good is it to know that the universe is expanding if our values and ideals are collapsing? What good is it to have split the atom if we have lost the soul of Adam? How long can we be nuclear giants while remaining ethical pygmies?

We must not deny the validity of the scientific quest or belittle its results, but we must restrain its hubris and ensure that man’s inherent worth remains primary. Religion finds its great good in preventing science from perverting the well-being of mankind. Today, when not an hour passes without nature divulging some secret, we are obliged to wisely use the power our growing knowledge brings. We must realize that not everything possible is permissible.

As long as moral law reigns, advances in science will be controlled by overriding claims of human sacredness and dignity. People will be safe from the menace of their own productions, from those who would blindly march to mechanical perfection.

Discussion concerning the origin of the species is intriguing, but discussion concerning the destiny of the species is imperative. It is one thing to debate the fine points of creation’s beginning, but what of our resolve that creation will not have an ending? How sad if we can illuminate the most distant star but our soul is left in darkness; how fascinating to feed data into machines, but how shameful that we do not feed little children.

I have great regard for the power of science, but infinitely greater regard for the power of the Torah.

Once a disciple entered his rabbi’s study in great excitement. “Come and see, Rabbi,” the student beckoned. “Somebody has created a robot, an artificial man. It’s amazing!”

Barely looking up from his book, the rabbi replied, “Show me someone who can produce a truly righteous man and then I’ll be impressed.”

We have learned from science to swim through the oceans like a fish, to fly through the sky like a bird, to sail through space like a comet.

When will we learn to walk the earth as children of God?

RABBI MARK S. MILLERTemple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach