![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[usual disclaimers about theological posts apply]
It is, I think, fairly self-evident that science and (Christian) theology are uncomfortable bed-follows. Many scientists regard Christians with suspicion, and vice versa. The two disciplines are, to my mind, asking essentially different questions, but nevertheless do interact, more or less fruitfully.
One subject that I've discussed with friends from a theological perspective recently on a couple of occasions is the problem of nature being "red in tooth and claw". Why, in a world created by a loving God, do some animals make a living out of eating other animals? There are many approaches to answering this question, but I was intruiged to spot an article in Nature referring to a paper in the Journal of Ecology this week that suggested another approach: predators may actually be necessary for the balance of an ecosystem with plants and herbivores in. The work published this week is the result of monitoring the biodiversity on the islands created when what is now Lake Guri was flooded. On the smaller islands there are no predators, and so the extant herbivores are slowly destroying the plant biodiversity on those islands; on the bigger islands where there are predators, the natural order is preserved.
It would be foolish to claim that this solves the issue I mentioned, but it's certainly an interesting piece of scientific work that could (and I venture to suggest should) inform theological reflection.
References:
News and views piece Nature 440, 613-614
Original article Terborgh, J. , Feeley, K. , Silman, M. , Nuñez, P. & Balukjian, B. J. Ecol. 94, 253–263 (2006)
[you may need a site licence or athens account to view these]
It is, I think, fairly self-evident that science and (Christian) theology are uncomfortable bed-follows. Many scientists regard Christians with suspicion, and vice versa. The two disciplines are, to my mind, asking essentially different questions, but nevertheless do interact, more or less fruitfully.
One subject that I've discussed with friends from a theological perspective recently on a couple of occasions is the problem of nature being "red in tooth and claw". Why, in a world created by a loving God, do some animals make a living out of eating other animals? There are many approaches to answering this question, but I was intruiged to spot an article in Nature referring to a paper in the Journal of Ecology this week that suggested another approach: predators may actually be necessary for the balance of an ecosystem with plants and herbivores in. The work published this week is the result of monitoring the biodiversity on the islands created when what is now Lake Guri was flooded. On the smaller islands there are no predators, and so the extant herbivores are slowly destroying the plant biodiversity on those islands; on the bigger islands where there are predators, the natural order is preserved.
It would be foolish to claim that this solves the issue I mentioned, but it's certainly an interesting piece of scientific work that could (and I venture to suggest should) inform theological reflection.
References:
News and views piece Nature 440, 613-614
Original article Terborgh, J. , Feeley, K. , Silman, M. , Nuñez, P. & Balukjian, B. J. Ecol. 94, 253–263 (2006)
[you may need a site licence or athens account to view these]
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Why is it less loving to kills animals to eat than to kill plants to eat?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
There's a fairly extended post on that subject that I'm brewing, but I think I'll save it for an LJ post of my own.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
That observation's not a criticism of christian theology, but it tends to underpin problems with trying to do this kind of merge (in that I think it can only be done from the perspective of the theological approach; I don't see a way of doing it from the perspective of the scientific approach).
(no subject)
(no subject)
Suddenly I have a vision of a BBC wildlife documentary:[David Attenborough whisper]
"And here we have the reclusive scientific methodology beastie, quietly disproving its prey. This disproof is often difficult to find - Nature tends to hide it in deep patches of mathematics.
Contrast the the rumbustious theological beastie, with its favoured hunting technique of denouncement and distinctive hunting cry of 'Heretichereticheretic'. This species has been largely superceded by a sub species which hunts using debate, but this sub species is harder to observe in the wild.
The species are cross fertile but these merges are rarely sucessful."
(no subject)
(no subject)
Mmm, whether I agree with that depends on what exactly you mean. I do not think that in themselves there is any great conflict between science and theology. As you go on to say, they are asking different questions and I would say that as science tells us about the world God created then it won't contradict who God is. However, I will admit that there is a perception of conflict, both in the popular mind and also in the minds of some scientists (not thinking of anyone called Dawkins at all) and some Christians (not thinking of YECcies either). May I remind you of John Polkinghorne and the Society of Ordained Scientists
(no subject)
My first thought was - "No they aren't..."
I think I may post about this at much more length in my journal if I've time.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Had he decided to, he could surely have invented a world where there is no death, and an infinite amount of space to hold the expanding population, or a world where every animal dies after a set length of time without experiencing pain/fear/disease etc. I expect he could even find a way of making a world where animals die of causes other than being eaten work...