Trinity Western professors explore science and faith

“There are believers who have reconciled excellence in science with a vibrant Christian faith”

LANGLEY, BC–Trinity Western University (TWU) is celebrating academic recognition amid the broad campaign to delegitimize its proposed law school. Two of its professors are among 25 successful international applicants selected to participate in an elite seminar at Oxford, exploring the interaction between science and faith.

The seminar, titled “Bridging the Two Cultures of Science and the Humanities,” includes funding and scholarly support for individual research projects proposed by each professor, as well as funding to establish a science and religion club at the professor’s home campus.

“Of the 25 recipients in this seminar, Trinity Western is the only school that received two applicants,” says Myron A. Penner, professor of philosophy at TWU and one of the seminar participants. “That speaks to the climate here for exploring science and religion.”

Penner’s project is a manuscript focused on helping students from conservative Christian backgrounds overcome any fear in engaging science.

“There are Christians who have a fear of what is being claimed by the scientific community, especially when it comes to implications of a scientific worldview in the age of the Earth and the nature of human origins. The book I am working on isn’t specifically about evolution, but evolution is one case study that is helpful in understanding the larger phenomenon of this science fear.”

Penner explains the tension is not necessarily between science and religion, but between science and specific interpretations of Scripture. There are good reasons, he says, to believe scientific claims like the Big Bang, evolution and the age of the Earth.

“Our unshakable commitment to [the gospel] needs to be distinguished from our own interpretations of what the Bible says on any particular point of doctrine,” says Penner. “Right through the present day, there are believers who have reconciled excellence in science with a vibrant Christian faith. It seems the height of ego for someone who doesn’t have the ability to navigate the data to ignore what science is saying because they don’t like it.”

The other TWU participant is biology professor Dennis Venema, who is writing a book to help Christian professors who are not biologists better understand the scientific basis for evolution and how the theory of evolution can be complementary to a Christian worldview.

“Many Christians oppose evolutionary biology because they feel it conflicts with the Genesis account,” he says. “There is good evidence, however, that the Genesis narratives are not speaking in terms of modern science. We need to recognize that we not only need to translate the language of Genesis, but also the culture and expectations of the original recipients of the text.”

Venema says many Christians don’t understand how drastically recent discoveries support evolution.

“Evolution is so well supported, and the evidence for it so compelling, that one cannot reject evolution and claim to have an up-to-date view of science.”

Of the 25 projects being funded by the grant, seven are overtly connected to the evolutionary view, while none approaches human origins from a traditional creationist perspective.

Venema says this is because the Templeton Religious Trust, the foundation funding the seminar, “typically doesn’t fund anti-evolutionary work, because of its many scientific shortcomings.”

Stan Rosenberg, executive director of SCIO, the group organizing the seminar, says it is focused on the broader dynamics of the cultures of science and humanities, rather than simply the science of human origins.

While he identifies himself also as a theistic evolutionist and believes that modern science cannot genuinely be used to support a traditional creationist view, he is clear that applicants views on the subject were not considered in selecting proposals.

“I think [theistic evolution] makes the most sense of reality. That doesn’t presume that I’ve found all the answers. I’m interested in engaging with deep, reflective thought wherever I find it. I’ve changed my views on this over the years and it’s because of trying to listen to others.”

Critics of the theory of evolution, however, highlight that it remains unproven, despite the tremendous amount of time and money being dedicated to exploring it. They also emphatically state that there is substantial, modern scientific support for the biblical narrative of creation.

Gary Chiang, professor of biology at Redeemer University College, says, “There is a wealth of scientific knowledge that fully supports creation as written in Scripture. The existence of living fossils [such as the platypus or crocodile] tells us that organisms have the capacity to stay the same. Species reproduce generation after generation as the same species, as described in Scripture.”

While the debate about human origins will likely continue for the foreseeable future, Penner says one thing he appreciates most at TWU is the openness to embrace differences.

“Among the staff and students, there are a variety of perspectives. We are a climate of freedom and safety to pursue both scientific expertise and a vibrant faith in a complementary way.”

Dear Readers:

If ChristianWeek has made a difference in your life, please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.

Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.
Thank you, from Christianweek.

About the author


Senior Correspondent

Craig Macartney lives in Ottawa, Ontario, where he follows global politics and dreams of life in the mission field.

  • J Arthur Peters

    It’s unfortunate you had to include Gary Chiang’s comments. The flat-earth society doesn’t need pandering to, and his primitive remarks took away from an otherwise heartening look at the wonderful intersect between science and Christian Faith. – Jerrad Peters

    • Lead Soldier

      The man is a biology professor at an academically respected Christian University, therefore on that score alone surely deserves better from a professional journalist. “Primitive” in what sense exactly? Your remarks serve only to “poison the well”. I wonder if you are familiar with the work of Geoffrey Burton Russell, “Inventing the Flat Earth”? The sphericity of the earth was known to the ancients. You have to be an incurable chronological snob willfully ignorant to invoke such absurd notions. As for the “wonderful intersect” of science and faith, in the case of these two professors at least one of whom works for the BioLogos organization (funded, like other theistic evolutionary projects out tens of millions of dollars doled out by the Templeton Foundation), evolution is not just a “good test case”; it is “the” issue for these people. Christians are not afraid of science, they never have been. All you have to do is review at random the annals of scientific societies going back hundreds of years even to the beginning of the Royal Society. You will see the appellation “Rev.” in front of a great many contributors in math, physics, botany, biology and so on.

      In the case of the Templeton/BioLogos/Regent College/Calvin College/TWU axis (and many others too numerous to mention here, this patronizing view is pervasive: Unless you accept the evolutionary view of origins and use it as the interpretive lens for Genesis, you are quite likely a little bit paranoid about science, you are to be welcomed as a brother, but as one weaker in the faith, a little bit dotty, and who is incapable of fully worshiping God with all of your mind.

      • Lead Soldier

        If there is anything “primitive” about this case, it lies with the truncated, manipulative and untrue view of science history and culture presented across the board by the disciples of Templeton and BioLogos. I would not go so far as yourself and rashly describe people with doctorates in biology, genetics (as in the case of Venema) as primitive. But it is a good description in the sense you use it, of their case in this matter. In fact, evolutionary science is completely irrelevant to genetics or biology.

  • George

    Jerrad – I am appalled by your denigrating statement regarding Gary Chiang. Surely proper reporting on any subject demands fair and equal treatment of both sides. That would be doing your job. “Flat earth society”, “primitive remarks”? These remarks only contribute to the flame and fury of the origins debate. Name calling to dismiss his view and the many millions of Christians he represents? Mighty Christian of you brother, mighty Christian of you.

    • Lead Soldier

      George, did you ever see the “science and faith” series in CW put out by Jenny McLaurin of Regent College? If you read them (still in the archives here last time I checked) and compare the phraseology to that used by our friend here, the Venema’s of the world, the crowd at Calvin et. al, you will realize a fearful symmetry exists among them all thanks in large part to the late John Templeton’s massively endowed foundation, a teat at which many theistic evolutionists have drunk warmly and deeply.

    • Lead Soldier

      As of this moment, which is 7pm est July 03, the whole series by Jennie McLaurin can still be read by searching the name. I strongly suggest you read them to get a better background to the subtle (or not) evolutionist program underwritten by Templeton; they provided a substantial grant to Regent College out of which came their “Cosmos” website, “Pastoral Science Cohorts” and so on.

  • Al Hiebert

    What is the “traditional creationist view” mentioned twice in this brief report? Is it the OEC “day-age theory” of Augustine (4th century), the OEC “theistic evolutionary theory” of the young Charles Dawin (19th century), C.S. Lewis (20th century) & Biologos (21st century), the OEC “gap theory” of C.I.Schofield (late19th & early 20th century), the YEC “flood geology theory” of Morris & Whitcome (later 20th century), the OEC “intelligent design theory” or what? I wish that all involved in this discussion might learn some humility as they interpret the empirical data of science through their worldview lens and the text of Scripture through their worldview lens. Human interpretions of the implications of both are always fallible.

    Personally I have no problem with the OEC “day-age theory” of Augustine (4th century), which may well support the Big Bang. What troubles me is the dogmatism of those who want us to believe that the Big Bang and first life had no intelligent cause. I also have no problem with a historical Adam & Eve, though they likely lived long before any date that Bishop Ussher gave them. I’m speculating beyond the data. So are all the dogmatic polemicists on all sides of these discussions, IMHO.

    • Lead Soldier

      “the dogmatic polemicists on all sides of these discussions”

      Do you mean the list of theories you cite, or do you mean the comments on this page?

      • Al Hiebert

        There are many more theories in this area than the few I cite. Each seem to have their dogmatic polemicists. Those are the ones I mean. The comments on this page are much too brief to qualify as such.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *