Faith And Science: Navigating The Covid-19 Storm

how covid raised stakes faith science

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the tension between faith and science, revealing a false dichotomy with disastrous real-world consequences. While some view science and faith as complementary, others perceive an inherent conflict. The pandemic has brought this to the fore, with differing views on the virus's spread and vaccine uptake. This cultural division is influenced by political leanings and a broader context of mistrust between evangelical faith communities and the scientific community. To bridge this divide, mutual respect and understanding of shared goals are crucial.

Characteristics Values
Rise of creationism movement Led by engineer Henry Morris in the 1960s
Bioethical conflicts Stem cell research and euthanasia
Cultural assumption Faith and facts/truth are in opposition
Political leanings Republicans are less likely to get vaccinated
Scientific community A vocal minority of prominent scientists have marginalized religious communities
Religious communities A minority of Christians present faith as opposed to evidence

shunspirit

The creationist movement and its impact on the relationship between evangelical churches and scientists

The creationist movement, led by engineer Henry Morris in the 1960s, has increased the skepticism between some evangelical churches and scientists. The rift continued to grow because of bioethical conflicts around issues like stem cell research and euthanasia, but more so because of a latent cultural assumption that faith and fact oppose each other.

The creationist movement is primarily a product of American-style Protestant biblical fundamentalism. It can be traced back to the evangelical split over slavery before the Civil War. Creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, but its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.

Creationism is not just an American phenomenon, it is spreading around the world along with the influence of American culture. In the twenty-first century, the only exceptions are war-torn and Islamic nations.

In the United States, creationism may not be getting bigger, but it is definitely big. Roughly half of the general population harbors significant sympathy for creationism.

Creationism is often based on literal or quasi-literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. The Genesis creation narratives (Genesis 1–2) describe how God brings the Universe into being in a series of creative acts over six days and places the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) in the Garden of Eden. This story is the basis of creationist cosmology and biology. The Genesis flood narrative (Genesis 6–9) tells how God destroys the world and all life through a great flood, saving representatives of each form of life by means of Noah's Ark. This forms the basis of creationist geology, better known as flood geology.

Recent decades have seen attempts to de-link creationism from the Bible and recast it as science; these include creation science and intelligent design. Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a pseudoscience that emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching evolution. Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a think tank whose wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations. It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."

Young Earth creationists such as Ken Ham and Doug Phillips believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, with a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies. Most young Earth creationists believe that the universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the universe than to Earth.

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of modern evolutionary theory are questionable.

Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case.

Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

> A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually, the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Through the 19th century, the term creationism most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. Following the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, there was interest in ideas of Creation by divine law. In particular, the liberal theologian Baden Powell argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous. When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity." Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature, and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.

In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. As of 2008, members of evangelical Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations were the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.

shunspirit

Bioethical conflicts around stem cell research and euthanasia

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised the stakes of the war between faith and science, with bioethical issues such as stem cell research and euthanasia becoming increasingly prominent.

Stem Cell Research

The creation and use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) have long been a unique focus of stem cell ethics. The debate surrounding hESCs centres on the moral status of the embryo, with opponents arguing that destroying the embryo is unethical as it has significant moral standing. Supporters, however, question whether all religious traditions grant full moral standing to early-stage embryos and point out that many embryos used in research are of poor quality and incapable of producing a pregnancy.

As the field of stem cell research progresses, new ethical issues are emerging, such as the derivation and use of other hESC-like stem cells and the use of all types of stem cells in clinical research. The relative ease of deriving new induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines means that new entrants are likely to emerge in the stem cell field, raising ethical concerns around the re-contacting and tracking of donors, incidental findings, and the extent of donors' rights to the downstream uses of their genetically matched iPSC lines.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are complex and controversial issues that raise numerous ethical and moral questions. The right to death with dignity is inevitably linked with ethics and morals, and opinions vary across countries and cultures. Some view human life as sacred and argue that euthanasia is immoral, while others believe that the interests and wishes of the patient should take precedence.

Physicians are divided on the issue, with some considering active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as ethically unacceptable, while others view them as acceptable in certain cases. The legislative treatment of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide also varies across countries, with some decriminalising or legalising these practices under certain conditions.

Impact of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the forefront the bioethical conflicts surrounding stem cell research and euthanasia, as scientists and healthcare professionals navigate the complex ethical landscape of these issues while striving to protect public health and save lives.

shunspirit

The cultural assumption that faith and facts are opposed

The perceived division between faith and science is often attributed to a latent cultural assumption that faith and facts are in opposition. This assumption has been exacerbated by bioethical conflicts around issues like stem cell research and euthanasia, as well as the rise of the creationist movement in the 1960s, led by engineer Henry Morris, which increased skepticism among some evangelical churches towards scientists. This cultural assumption has been further fuelled by a minority of vocal scientists who have, at times, marginalised religious communities through their public comments and social media posts. For example, a Christmas tweet by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared to mock Christians on one of their most sacred holidays, creating unnecessary animosity.

On the other hand, some Christians also contribute to this perception by presenting faith as opposed to evidence, rather than "faith as a lived-out commitment in response to evidence". Additionally, heated anti-science rhetoric from a minority of Christians online encourages scientists to dismiss people of faith wholesale.

This cultural assumption has real-world consequences, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. White evangelicals are the least likely religious group to get vaccinated, and while there are political reasons for this, the broader context of mistrust between evangelical faith communities and the scientific community cannot be ignored.

Path to reconciliation

Astrophysicist and president of BioLogos, Deborah Haarsma, is passionate about reconciling the false dichotomy between faith and science. She offers practical steps to bridge the gap: religious communities should be encouraged to "trust science as a gift from God", while church leaders can praise God for the creation and our ability to study and understand it. Churches can also spotlight scientists, especially those who are people of faith and leaders in their fields.

In turn, the scientific community should be more transparent about the limitations of scientific knowledge and acknowledge the value of faith as a way of answering life's biggest questions. Ultimately, both communities share a common goal of seeking truth, and they can find common ground in their desire to know what is true, whether about nature or God.

shunspirit

The impact of political leanings on vaccination rates

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the impact of political leanings on vaccination rates, with political partisanship being one of the strongest predictors of COVID-19 vaccination rates. This partisan vaccination gap has led to significant differences in infection and mortality rates between political groups.

In the United States, Republicans have been found to have lower vaccination rates than Democrats, resulting in higher excess death rates among Republican voters. A similar pattern has been observed in Europe, where political polarization has been closely linked to vaccine hesitancy.

Additionally, political leaders and elites play a significant role in shaping their supporters' attitudes towards vaccination. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Donald Trump's scepticism towards COVID-19 prevention behaviours and vaccines influenced many Republicans to adopt similar positions, widening the vaccination gap between Republicans and Democrats. On the other hand, leaders who initially expressed scepticism about vaccines but later supported vaccination, such as some Latin American leaders, had a positive impact on their fellow partisans' vaccination rates.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also led to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories, particularly on social media. This has contributed to vaccine hesitancy and declining trust in public health officials and scientific experts. The consumption of misleading or false information is often driven by affective polarization, where individuals are more likely to consume and believe information that aligns with their political biases.

To mitigate the impact of political leanings on vaccination rates, it is crucial to build and restore trust in public health institutions and experts. This can be achieved by emphasising the evolving nature of scientific knowledge and communicating uncertainties. Additionally, leveraging community norms and social networks, such as religious, athletic, and military leaders, can be effective in promoting vaccination by providing trusted sources of health information within communities.

shunspirit

The role of prominent scientists and religious figures in influencing public opinion

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the divide between religious communities and the scientific community, with some viewing the two as incompatible. This has had disastrous real-world consequences, especially regarding vaccine uptake.

The Role of Prominent Scientists and Religious Figures

Prominent scientists and religious figures have both contributed to and attempted to alleviate this divide. On the one hand, a vocal minority of prominent scientists, such as astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, have been accused of marginalizing religious communities with statements that appear to mock sacred holidays and spur unnecessary animosity.

On the other hand, some religious figures have presented faith as opposed to evidence, contributing to heated anti-science rhetoric that encourages scientists to dismiss people of faith. However, other religious figures, such as Deborah Haarsma, have actively worked to reconcile the two. As an astrophysicist and the Christian president of BioLogos, an organization exploring the faith-science relationship, Haarsma suggests practical steps to bridge the gap. These include religious communities trusting science as a gift from God and church leaders praising God for the creation and the ability to study and understand it. She also emphasizes the need for scientists to be more honest about the limitations of their discipline and to acknowledge the value of religion in answering life's biggest questions.

Frequently asked questions

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the tension between faith and science, with some seeing the two as incompatible. This has had real-world consequences, particularly in the context of vaccine hesitancy among certain religious groups, such as white evangelicals.

The perceived conflict between faith and science can be traced back to high-profile debates over Darwin's theory of evolution in the late 19th century and the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, which set up Christian beliefs and science as incompatible ideas. The rise of the creationist movement in the 1960s further widened the divide between some evangelical churches and scientists.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the real-world consequences of the conflict between faith and science, particularly in terms of vaccine hesitancy and public health outcomes. This highlights the importance of building trust between religious communities and the scientific community and promoting a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between faith and science.

Written by
Reviewed by
  • Seti
  • Seti
    Author Editor Reviewer
Share this post
Print
Did this article help you?

Leave a comment