Re: The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence BackTo 195,000 Years Ago

----- Original Message -----
From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
To: ""George Murphy"" <gmurphy@raex.com>; ""Dick Fischer""
<dickfischer@earthlink.net>; """ASA""" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence BackTo
195,000 Years Ago

> In a message dated 3/1/2005 2:44:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, "George
> Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> writes:
.............................
>>But please recognize that that doesn't mean a failure to embrace evolution
>>simpliciter. I, & some others, think that the appropriate way of embracing
>>evolution is to interpret the scientific understanding of evolution from a
>>theological perspective (based on, inter alia, Genesis) rather than vice
>>versa.
>>
>>Shalom
>>George
>>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
> You can't interpret the scientific theory of evolution from a theological
> perspective. That means you intend to maintain your theological
> perspective regardless of the science because it is your constant, your
> perspective, your paradigm. You're so afraid you'll render the theology
> useless you want to look through theological lenses at evolution. You
> can't. The evolutionary perspective will illuminate and elucidate the
> theology, but unless you have faith and let go of yourself (literally) to
> look, you won't see it. My paper True Religion doesn't invalidate the
> fall. It re-interprets it rationally. No atheist can wage an argument that
> will stand against it, not because it is my wish but because the Darwinian
> interpretation is correct. Approach Genesis with a Darwinian eye and see
> if it conflicts with your theology. Don't look at it with a theological
> eye. You'll only see your own theology as you understand it and you'll
> reject anything that suggests a conflict with it. This is ironic, becaue
> if you try to maintain your theology exactly as you presently understand
> it, you'll lose it altogether because there are no rational scientific
> arguments for the theology you are trying to maintain. There is only
> faith. If you let go of your preconceived theological notions, the
> theology will come back to you enhanced and rational out of the Darwinian
> perspective you bring to bear. If faith is sufficient for you, then why
> are you even talking science, why waste the time? And if faith is not
> sufficient for you, then why not take the Darwinian look that will get you
> over the impasse instead of holding onto your theology for dear life?

Thanks for telling me what I can't do but I've done it. You can look at my
approach in a paper titled "A Theological Argument for Evolution" on the ASA
site at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html . This is 19
years old & I'd say some things differently today but would stand by its
essentials. A more thorough presentation of my theological approach,
including its application to evolution, is in my 2003 book _The Cosmos in
the Light of the Cross_.

Dealing with evolution from the specific theological perspective that I
adopt does not meaning that theology puts limits on science or tells
scientists to do their job: One of the implications of this perspective is
that the natural world can be understood without reference to God, /etsi
deus non daretur/. Nor do I mean that science is not to be taken into
account in the way theology is expressed. But the basis of Christian faith
is revelation, not scientific knowledge of the world.
There is no way that scientific study of evolution or of anything else will
tell you that Jesus of Nazareth is God Incarnate.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Mar 1 20:03:55 2005