Last week I covered the intersection of religion and science, and concluded that in many cases religion answers “why?” questions while science answers “how?” questions. I also highlighted a problem: Sometimes religion’s answers will extend beyond the why and into the how, for example the creation story in Genesis explaining how the Earth was made. This will cause some devoted practitioners who prefer the religious answers to find themselves at odds with many in the scientific community. This is okay, provided both sides understand the reasons behind this divide and keep the discussion intellectual and mature. Finally, I briefly discussed one specific problem with this conclusion: how we should approach intelligent design and evolution in public schools.
The impulse to teach intelligent design alongside evolution will be the topic of today’s article, and I will spoil the end by telling readers I do not think we should. But, as LeVar Burton was accustomed to say, “You don’t have to take my word for it.” Instead, I will outline my arguments for not completely interpreting the Bible literally and then show how this non-literal view removes the Bible from scientific discussion without destroying its spiritual legitimacy. From there, as always, it is up to the reader to evaluate what I have said and decide for themselves, especially if they find themselves on the side of the literalists.
The first thing to understand is, as I said last week, there are many degrees of biblical literalism. Rather than outline them all and explain how interpreting the Bible should not be done, I will outline my view of the one way it should be. I agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s view on the interpretation of the Bible as infallible only in matters concerning faith or morals. I also want it to be very clear that I understand where my literalist friend (mentioned last week) was coming from in his arguments. “Tom,” he said, “If Genesis is wrong [about the creation of the world], then the rest of the Bible is wrong too.” This is an understandable statement, but not exactly true.
To emphasize my points, I will take an example from the writings of Cardinal John Henry Newman. In his text, “What is of obligation for a catholic to believe concerning the inspiration of the canonical scriptures,” Newman recalls the New Testament’s Book of Timothy. The apostle Paul is missing some things and instructs Timothy at the end of the book to bring “the cloak which he left in Troas with Carpus.” Newman asks his readers, (sic) “Would St. Timothy … think this an infallible utterance? And supposing it had been discovered … that the Apostle left his cloak with Eutychus, not with Carpus, would Timothy, would Catholics now, make themselves unhappy, because St. Paul had committed … “a falsehood”? Would Christians declare that they had no longer any confidence in Paul after he had so clearly shown that he “had” not “the Spirit of God”? Would they feel that he had put the whole Apostolic system into confusion, and by mistaking Eutychus for Carpus he had deprived them henceforth of reading with any comfort his Epistle to the Romans or to the Ephesians?”
Newman admits this is a bit of a ridiculous question, but he makes a clear point: There is content in the Bible that does not warrant the stamp of infallibility. Christians are supposed to read the Bible as a guide for their understanding of God (faith) and how he wants them to live their lives (morals). Salvation history is an important aspect of faith and morals, but readers must be critical of information in the Bible. They must realize that Joshua trusting God to see him through the Battle of Jericho (a matter of faith) is far more important than the specific date on which the battle occurred (a matter for historians). My friend’s claim that Genesis’ incorrectness means the rest of the Bible is also incorrect places too much importance on sentences and ideas within Christian Scriptures which warrant no such importance. Paul’s theology and moral instructions are important; where he left his cloak is not.
What is more, the creation story being allegorical does not rob God of his power or importance. Just because he did not create the world we know in six days does not mean he did not create the world. Forming life over billions of years with the elegant instrument of evolution takes nothing away from his masterful artistry in forming the nervous system. In short, removing the infallibility of the “how?” questions and answers from the Bible will not leave behind an impotent religion. The teachings from the Sermon on the Mount are still powerful ideas, even if the Sermon might have really been delivered on a plain.
It should then be obvious to readers how this removes the need to teach intelligent design alongside evolution. Without the “how?” questions and answers, the Bible need not come into biology. It is up to individual believers to connect the dots. They must synthesize, for example, the reasons why God created ribosomes and the way ribosomes work into a cohesive and useable worldview. Parents who want their child to know about God must themselves teach their children, or send them to Sunday school or a school with religious classes. Leave the how to the science teachers and the why to the religion teachers.
I understand this conclusion hinges on my view of Scripture, but I hope I have clearly related my justifications for holding this view. Any further questions or concerns on this subject can either be directed to the opinion column’s email, or related in the form of a letter to the editor. I appreciate you all for reading, and hope that I can spark both understanding and further discussion.
Did you know Tom’s column last week about science and religion and this week’s column were written after a reader suggested the topic? Send in your suggestions for what Tom should cover next. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
