List,
My wife is a member of the American Federation of Teachers, which
recently excerpted Eugenie Scott's article as referred to below. I'd
appreciate some peer review before I decide whether to send this to the
AFT. I apologize for the length of this post.
Bryan Cross seemed back in July to dismiss my notion that "survival of
the fittest" could be at all compatible with biblical teaching, implying
that I was guilty of eisegesis and Social Darwinism. There's a
difference between eisegesis and the suggestion of possible correlations
or models for interpretation. No one who knew of my extensive
songwriting and other activities on behalf of the family farm movement,
to give one example, would accuse me of Social Darwinism.
Yet family farmers have to struggle to make their case (and harvest
their crops), grace works in the context of justice, non-temple prophets
challenge the establishment, and the **spiritually** fit survive. (See
Prov. 3:34; Matt. 5:5.) Bryan's critique would be correct if we were
talking about outward appearances. Since I am talking about an attitude
of humility and dependence on God being something that God says he can
work with, I maintain that we are saying the same thing, although I am
adding that it's a tough world out there and, if I may quote Wayne, "By
grace alone do we proceed."
Do the list members see any parallels among an evolutionary-type
process in the scientific study of origins, the survival of a remnant of
God's chosen people in the OT, and the process of striving to enter the
narrow gate (Matt. 7:13) and similar concepts taught by our Lord? I'm
not content to put the Bible in one corner of my mind and science in
another. Neither will I concede the public schools to overgrown
evolutionism.
Bryan Cross wrote [snip]
> In special revelation, God is constantly helping the weak, lifting up the poor, deposing the lofty. He often chooses those that seem most unfit, and therefore unexpected. He shows grace to those who do not deserve it. This mode of operation is directly contrary to that of
Darwinian evolution, where the fittest are rewarded and the weakest are
exterminated. There is no such thing as 'grace' in the Darwinian system,
where rewards are based solely on merit. The line of the Messiah is
'contaminated' with Gentiles like Ruth and Rahab. The Beatitudes and
the Sermon on the Mount extol the anti-Darwinian moral character,
"blessed are the meek, turn the other cheek, give to him who asks", etc.
It is quite safe to say that Christianity is completely antithetically
to social Darwinism. Anyone who claims to find social Darwinism in
God's actions described in special revelation is practicing eisegesis.
Now for my proposed letter to the AFT:
Mailbox, AFT On Campus:
Eugenie C. Scott is either a clever user of literary allusion or the
victim of a deep irony. Scott states in “Not (just) in Kansas
anymore–Higher education must help protect the science curriculum” (AFT
On Campus, Sept., 2000), “Scientists and philosophers have examined
[irreducible complexity and the design of inference] and found them
wanting.” (The article is excerpted from the May 5, 2000, issue of
Science.)
The latter term harks back to the account of the “handwriting on the
wall” in the biblical book of Daniel, when God crashes an idolatrous,
drunken victory celebration with a prophecy of impending accountability.
The inscription that appears in the plaster of the royal palace is
interpreted, in part, “You have been weighed on the scales and found
wanting.”
If indeed evolutionary methodology is correct, which is the more
substantial model for its application––morphing it into an incomplete
science (Where did it all start?), a vicious Social Darwinism, and a
philosophy of meaninglessness and alienation––or seeing it as simply a
methodology open to alternate interpretation?
The principle of variation and selection is found throughout the
Bible. In the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament, God’s people wander away
from his precepts, suffer the “natural” consequences, look to God for
mercy, and survive as a wiser, more devoted remnant. In the Greek
Scriptures/New Testament, Jesus teaches that good stewards of his gospel
of freedom will be separated from the wicked as wheat from chaff. The
Book of Revelation talks about crowns for those who persevere and
overcome. Material things are considered useful as tools, but as gods
are indeed “found wanting.”
Mathematics tells us that a greater dimension can intersect with a
lesser, making changes that cannot easily be interpreted. (See
Flatland.) Everyday life tells us that a hand in a glove cannot be seen,
although its effects are undeniable. An evolutionary system set in place
by a Creator would account for the phenomena detected by science, while
giving the “buck” a reasonable place to start and stop.
We can’t have it both ways. We must either reject the expansion of
evolutionary science into an “establishment of religion” to be
promulgated in our public schools, or we must allow other religions to
offer their interpretations of the data, with young people making their
choices according to an intellectual “survival of the fittest.” To state
it poetically,
“Oh where have you been, Lord Random, my son?
Where have you been, my lucky young man?”
“I’m at the casino; their chances are greater
Than of all this existing without a Creator.”
(From “Lord Random,” by Dan Eumurian,
© 1996, Come Thru Music Co., 1634 Barlow St.,
La Crosse, WI 54601)
Dan and Marie Eumurian
La Crosse, WI
hope4you@CenturyTel.net
(Dan Eumurian is a music teacher, piano technician and dealer, and
singer-songwriter, with degrees in music education and theological
studies. He is a member of the American Scientific Affiliation. Marie is
a Registration Assistant at Western Wis. Technical College in La
Crosse.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 10:31:52 EDT