aspects of reality. Writers using this paradigm include Denis Lamoureux 71
and Francis Collins. 72
Concordists like Hugh Ross assume agreement or harmony between
theology and science, when both are done properly. They do not necessar-
ily expect a one-to-one relationship, but rather, extensive overlap between
scientifi c fi ndings and the biblical message. 73 Some Concordists also expect
scientists and theologians to incorporate each other’s methods and fi ndings
whenever appropriate. We call these people integrational Concordists, and
their approach is much like the “Theistic Science” approach of Moreland
and Craig 74 and the “Creative Mutual Interaction” of Russell. 75
Our interest in the actual relational paradigms used by people led us
to measure how they responded to various propositions. 76 We analyzed
1491 STPS surveys from fi ve populations (U.S. scientists, students at a
large Christian university, Assemblies of God (AG) educators, pastors, and
students, Protestant faith and science conference attendees, and faculty
and students at AG institutions of higher learning).
For all groups studied, Complementarism dominated. The two groups
with lower self-reported levels of religious commitment (American scien-
tists in 2003 and students at a large Christian university in 2014) favored
Complementarism alone and had the highest percentages of using none
of the paradigms.
Assemblies of God educators, pastors, and students (2011), Protestant
faith and science conference attendees (2014), and faculty and stu-
dents at AG institutions of higher learning (2014–2015) favored both
Complementarism and Concordism. They also had the lowest propor-
tions of respondents who did not use any science–theology paradigms.
Complementarism and Confl ict: Theology over Science is the pre-
dominant approach for young earth creationists. Old earth creationists
and evolutionary creationists primarily use Complementarism followed by
Concordism.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Can nonexperts productively explore theology and science in ways that do
not do damage to valid scientifi c and theological methods and procedures?
Not all who are involved in the discussions of relating theology and science
share the expertise of the theoreticians cited in the preceding paragraphs.
So how does a Christian church-attendee, or for that matter, a theologian,
become profi cient enough at science to evaluate scientifi c conclusions?
290 M. TENNESON ET AL.