Does it strike anybody else as absolutely crazy that the man who continues, against all reason and despite a complete lack of necessity, to defend a historical reading of the creation story (see tweet below…)

Just a few minutes later informed his Twitter followers about this:

Really, Mohler? You deny science on NPR, but we should care about your thoughts on bioethics?

On a related note, I met this week with a new friend, the influential writer Karl Giberson. Giberson has been the executive vice-president of The BioLogos Foundation and is author of several books that prove that the kind of willingful suspension of being-a-reasonable-human-being that Mohler continues to display needn’t set the benchmark for Christian consideration of science. And, unlike Mohler, Karl Giberson also happens to be a scientist. Incidentally, Karl has gone head to head (or, at least, blog post to blog post) with Mohler on this very issue.

In the midst of seemingly daily debates amongst the current Republican candidates for their party’s nomination, the ugly and unthinking underbelly of conservative Christianity has been on prominent display. We have heard cheers for the death penalty, boo’s directed at members of the military who happen to be gay, and a ridiculous number of climate change deniers. Now, more than ever, we need to hear from intelligent, thinking Christians like Karl Giberson. By all means, let the pastors teach and preach, but let’s leave the addresses on bioethics and biotechnology to those who actually know a thing or two about such topics.

Update: Karl Giberson on “Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience” at The Huffington Post

About The Author

Jonathan D. Fitzgerald

Editor | Follow him on Twitter.

  • David P

    You referenced one Christian PhD is Physics. Another Public radio show this week had two people with PhDs in Chemistry and Biology deabting the origins of life. Thinking people all over, and “we” only look dumb when we ignore these people and focus on people we don’t like instead.

    Where Are the Thinking Christians? Spare us the theatrics.

  • http://www.patrolmag.com Fitz

    David, thank you for your comment. Can you provide a link to the other public radio show? Thanks!

  • http://menliketreeswalking.blogspot.com Matthew

    Point #1: I totally agree with you. It upsets me greatly that Christians buy into pseudoscience and rage about non-issues like 6-day creationism, obstruct progress on important issues like global warming, and botch our rightful voice by misusing science when it comes to really important issues where we should stand up like abortion and stem cell research. I really do care about helping evangelicals think more soundly about these issues, and I think we should be winsomely engaging with our brothers & sisters on these issues.

    Point #2: I feel like the smug, condescending attitude exemplified in this short post (and pretty consistently displayed at Patrol) will only make the debate worse. Setting up the “thinking Christians” vs. the “non-thinking Christians” is a rhetorical flourish that only fans the flame of the culture wars and gets the people in your tribe more fired up. If you really want to create dialogue and help the Christian community find its way, please do not be so mean on the internet. Thanks!

  • Kathy

    Question for Matthew – What, specifically, have you found to be a successful avenue for engaging in discussions with people of different views? How do you open up a conversation on issues like the relationship between faith and science, or other “hot-button” topics? I wonder if words can ever bridge the gaps, or if we just have to continue to try to work side by side, offering the cup of cold water, and hoping for a very slow change in attitudes.

    • http://menliketreeswalking.blogspot.com Matthew

      Kathy,

      Mostly just long conversations over years and years with the same friends. I try not to badmouth people who disagree with me and we respect each other in a lot of other ways, so we can have civil discussions even about heated issues. I think that words can be part of change, but mostly you’re right– it’s loving the person genuinely and living a faithful life.

      I have also really sought to eschew a bitter or mean tone in my internet discourse if I can. There are some friends that I can joke with and I enjoy that, but mostly I try to post things that I’ve found compelling and then respond graciously & thoughtfully. I look at the sort of rhetoric that makes me annoyed but makes me think and try to emulate that. I look at the sort of rhetoric that makes me not like the position the author takes because they’re being cruel and I try to avoid talking like that.

  • http://www.djfick.blogspot.com Daniel J. Fick

    If Mohler isn’t a scientist, then we should equally affirm that Giberson isn’t a theologian. Therefore, to be sure, we need to find some healthy medium between the two, rather than simply telling the theologians to stay out of the science community, while not telling the scientists to remain out of the theological community. It’s a non sequitur.

  • nathan

    we should further clarify that Mohler isn’t a theologian either. He’s a polemicist who sings in a religious key.

  • david seidel

    non sequitur and polemicist….this is why I read the sports page

  • Joe

    Where are the thinking Christians? Gee, I dunno, but it is obvious where the jackasses are. I mean, really, disagree if you please, but you can be thinking and agree with Mohler. Or, wait, are you a PhD in biowhatever yourself? Or more likely, I writer willing to engage in dramatic name calling. As for Mohler not being a theologian, who really does qualify for this distinction? You guys being enthralled with the zeitgeist never fails to amaze. Wish we could all be so earnest, intelligent, and … never mind. Talk to you when you are in your Forties.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.