The Spring 2007 edition of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology just came out (SBTS press release). The editorial and forum are available as PDFs.

D. A. Carson leads the forum by answering this question:

In any complex debate, it is not long before there are “hidden” elements in the discussion, i.e., elements that are gumming up the integrity of debate because one side or the other fails to recognize their existence and significance. What “hidden” elements are there in current discussions over science and origins? (p. 78)

Carson’s 7.5-column answer (pp. 78-81) includes three major points:

“(1) Considerable confusion exists over what a biblically faithful understanding of the relationship between God and the created order ought to be. Consider three possibilities.”

• “(a) In an open universe (not to be confused with “open theism”), God interacts openly with the created order.”
• “(b) The direct opposite of the first option is the closed universe. By this I mean that everything that happens in the universe is caused by other things in the universe. There is no outsider, and certainly no God who reaches in and controls things. Cause and effect take place within the closed order of creation.”
• “(c) An alternative to both is the ordered and controlled universe. Here everything that happens takes place within God’s control: not a bird falls from the heavens, Jesus reminds us, apart from God’s sanction.”
• “My point, in any case, is simple: all sides often bring certain assumptions about this relationship to the table, and rule certain arguments out of order simply because they cannot see beyond their assumptions.”

“(2) Two views of what science is are battling to prevail in the public square.”

• “Although the two overlap, the first is more narrowly methodological than the second. The first asserts that science is tasked with understanding as much as possible of the physical order, using the time-tested tools of careful observation, measurement, controlled experiments that can be replicated, deploying testable hypotheses that win consensus or are modified or overturned by subsequent advances, and so forth.”
• “The second view of what science is adopts all the methodological commitments of the first, but adds a philosophical commitment: science in this second view steadfastly refuses to allow into the discussion, at any level, any appeal whatsoever to anything supernatural.”
• “But my point is at the moment a simpler one: Very often conflicting definitions of ‘science’ lurk behind the intensity of our debates.”

“(3) Hermeneutical discussions regarding the opening chapters of Genesis often hide another set of assumptions. . . . [M]y point is the simpler one: on all sides of this discussion, very often hidden elements gum up the quality of the discussion.”

Read the whole article.