What Do Christians Need?

I have often asked myself, "What is it that God's people really need with respect to creation and evolution issues? What tools do they need in order to help them evaluate things like creation models and points of evolution from a Lutheran perspective?"

In my opinion, it is absolutely imperative that a Christian begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, an item that would be of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.

These points/distinctions are as follows:

1) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and (especially) what the Bible does not say.
- I have often seen mistakes made by well-meaning Christian individuals who have inferred what God should have said or what God intended to say, rather than God actually having spoken it Himself through His Word.
- This is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. For example, with scientific issues about which God is silent, a Christian may in good conscience select any position that he/she sees fit.

2) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific issues and theological issues.
- It is essential for Christians to understand when and how Christian freedom applies to the issues of evolution and creation. For example, if one responds to a scientific question with what should be a scientific answer but rather replies with a theological answer, he is presenting the issue as theologically settled and possibly binding on another's conscience, whereas in reality, the matter may be open to Christian assessment.
- In addition, when exposed to Creation/evolution literature, Christians often ask themselves the single question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach for a Christian is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions: Namely, "Is this theologically permissible?" and "Is this scientifically valid?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two diametrically opposed scientific opinions may both be theologically permissible.

3) Understand the differences between the scientific definition and the theological definition of words such as "truth" and "fact"
- In science, there is no such thing as a "final truth" since existing truths may be revised or superseded at any time. In science, the reason why truths are always considered tentative is because scientific knowledge is always incomplete. In theology, on the other hand, God promises that His Word is sufficient for our needs.
- The criteria for determining a "truth" and a "fact" are different between science and theology. Scientific truth is (to a large extent) based on repetitive observation. In theology, it is centered on God's Word and promise rather than what we observe and feel.

4) Understand that science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
- This even applies to so-called "creation science" (that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism) and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models.
- Science is often presented to and perceived by people, who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. This is not an honest appraisal. More realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a foam/porous ball where the knowns and unknowns are mixed and outside of which there are an unknown amount of unknowns.
- This is not to say that science is necessarily wrong (for various reasons, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is right); this is also not meant to underestimate the growth and level of scientific knowledge; but, one can always say with certainty that scientific knowledge will never offer a complete view of physical reality. There will always be unknown variables (the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed) and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the knowns and unknowns in the physical world.
- Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the listener/reader always understand this incomplete/tentative nature of scientific conclusions - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that the Old Adam will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence (which was incomplete in the first place) is later falsified, despair will prevail.
- It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: if there is (tentative/incomplete) scientific evidence in favor of creation, that's OK; and, if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because, in the end, it really doesn't matter -- God's Word is sure.
- This is not to say that creation models are inherently wrong or bad; personally, I find them rather enjoyable. However, it is important for the Christian to understand the role and place of scientific models in the realm of creation and evolution so as to recognize 1) their limitations and 2) the responsibility of the writer and reader in maintaining the aforementioned distinctions.