In this video Conversation, Joel Hunter addresses the “slippery slope” argument supported by many evangelicals and suggests that not only is this perspective flawed, but it also may prevent believers from appreciating the fullness of God’s creation.
Hunter explains that when evangelicals argue that to accept science is to reject God (and biblical inerrancy), what is really being protected is a singular way to interpret scripture. Many evangelical parents are guarding the only type of literalistic interpretation that they themselves were taught because they fear that supporting scientific thought would negate the messages they have learned from scripture—when in fact, we can believe in the inerrancy in scripture without discarding scientific truths.
I generally like Joel’s name argument, but this one doesn’t go far enough, in my opinion. I believe that he is essentially correct – why? Because nearly the same argument was used during the Reformation against the Reformers. The argument of ‘slippery slope’ is one used to preserve a subjective interpretation of Scripture against challenges.
This is a thought in the back of my mind, for now … when Christ said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, and if all Truth is God’s truth, then why is it that science cannot play a part in understanding the Text?