matological theology of creation.” Later in the same book we fi nd a key
amplifi cation of this theme applicable to the debate over evolution “...
creation’s work is set within a robust pneumatological framework that
preserves the ongoing creative activity of God.” 3 Interestingly, and impor-
tantly, something not far from this position is taken in the Episcopalian
Catechism on Creation. 4
A second theme supported by pentecostal–charismatic writers on the
faith–science front concerns the ultimate goal of the dialogue. Happily, I
don’t detect an overt apologetic stance, in the sense that Christians should
be looking for some material or philosophical proof of God in the discov-
eries of science. A pneumatological approach can avoid this stance, and
should do so. The “complementary-not-convergent” expectation clearly
followed by Yong and others is a big step in the right direction. 5 Biology
and theology are asking different questions for different reasons from dif-
ferent perspectives and with different presuppositions. If their practitioners
do their work well, both should arrive at some reasonable estimations of
the truth, but these will more than likely be complementary. That is, they
will not necessarily confi rm each other’s conclusions, but neither should
they deny each other’s conclusions, properly understood and interpreted.
The challenge is to learn from one another while sticking to our respec-
tive knitting. Science will not tell Christians how to do theology, but it
may well help us improve our theology. A healthy working relationship
and respect between the two should also produce fewer scientists who are
fundamentally opposed to God talk. Michael Hanby even suggests that
science, particularly biology, needs theology. He argues that “... not only
[is] science compatible with creation but also ... science needs creation
in order to fi nally be science and to avoid falsifying itself and its objects.
This is because theology performs for the sciences a service which they
cannot perform for themselves. Theology ‘saves the appearances’ for sci-
ence by saving the being that is the condition of possibility for the truth
of appearance.” 6
There are numerous fl ash points in current faith–science discussion,
and probably one of the thorniest is the problem of death. At fi rst glance,
the biologist’s view of death seems completely unable to address the theo-
logian’s view, and vice versa. If meaningful conversation could be opened
on this front, a way may be opened for progress on other fronts. I fully
realize this is jumping into the deepest end of the pool, but it is possible
that a fuller understanding of death, as a biologist views it, could be a
good subject for Christian theologians/philosophers and biologists to talk
LET THERE BE LIFE!: TOWARD A HERMENEUTIC OF BIOLOGICAL... 299