Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

At 11:05 AM 8/28/2006, gordon brown wrote:

> I wonder whether Wells's book will be reviewed in some Christian
> journal. If so, and if the reviewer doesn't mention his lack of
> qualifications to be a defender of traditional Christianity, we
> ought to make sure that the editor receives numerous letters making
> this point. ~ Gordon Brown

@ If "lack of qualifications" trouble you, below is a list of even
more people you can write to in protest. ~ Janice :)

At 12:00 AM 8/27/2006, Janice Matchett wrote:
At 10:56 PM 8/27/2006, Keith Miller wrote:
> To all:
>
> I have just learned of a new book by Jonathan Wells -- "The
> [deleted] Incorrect guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design." In
> that book he has a chapter entitled "Darwinism's War on Traditional
> Christianity." In this chapter, Well's presents himself as a
> defender of "traditional Christianity" ! Here is a prominent
> member of [you know whose]Church who believes that Jesus' death on
> the cross was a failure of his mission, and that [you know who] is
> the messiah come to complete Jesus' failed work, speaking as a
> defender of traditional Christianity! In this chapter he
> specifically condemns the theology of people like Ken Miller and
> John Haught! Wells writes: "In other words, a Darwinian who really,
> really wants to be a Christian can be a Christian of sorts -- just
> not a traditional one." No person who accepts evolution can be a
> traditional Christian -- but someone who rejects the centrality of
> the death and resurrection of Christ can!
>
> This is beyond words! ~ Keith

@ Ted Davis mentions the "theology" of John Haught, and Ken
Miller's name comes into the mix in the item I provide below from
2005. Apparently you'll be in for a shock, based on what you wrote
above.

Randy had written this about another new book: "... .The subtitle of
the book is "Science, Christianity, and the Quest for
Understanding." and provided this news
release:
<http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0809evolution.shtml>http://
www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0809evolution.shtml

Quoting from the news release: "...An array of distinguished
reviewers, contacted by AAAS, found the book to be a useful, balanced
treatment of the issues. .....Jack Haught, a Georgetown University
theologian ...."

Flash back to 2005 - Dover, PA:

"...One ASA member, Ted Davis.....also provides intriguing if less
flattering analysis of Friday's expert testimony here:

"...I went to court yesterday and heard the entire testimony...of
Jack Haught, the Georgetown theologian who appeared as a witness ...

(3) Then it got really, really interesting. Mr thompson asked Jack
whether he is a [you know what] theologian, and Jack affirmed that he
is. Did he have the official whatever-it-is-called-sort-of-license to
be a [you know what] theologian? No, Jack said, the local authority
responsible for that is pretty understanding (my words to give my
impression of what he said, I don't have notes with his words) about
this.

Mr Thompson then produced a copy of the [you know what], and asked
Jack point blank about whether or not he believes in the virgin
birth, the resurrection, and an historical Adam and Eve. What is your
position on these points, he wanted to know.

Jack then did the Bultmann thing, relative to the virgin birth and
the resurrection--no, he stated, if there were a videocamera in the
room when Jesus appeared to the disciples, that camera would not have
recorded anything, since it takes faith to see the resurrected Jesus
(and presumably, the camera would have lacked faith). From private
conversation with Jack a few years ago, I was pretty sure this is
what he would say--Jack questioned my conviction that the bodily
resurrection is vital to Christian belief--but I have never talked
about this conversation publicly b/c I did not think it was
appropriate to do so. Now however it is fair to mention it.

Jack also denied on the stand that he is a "process theologian," I
can't fathom just why he did so. He's seen as a process theologian by
everyone I know, and I still consider him a process theologian.
Perhaps I'll get a chance at some point to ask him to clarify his own
position, relative to process theology. But you could've fooled me,
and I don't think I'm easily fooled on this type of thing. Perhaps he
didn't want to be pigeonholed for the purposes of further
questioning, in which case I would understand his answer. ...

...And, the first scientist to testify, Ken Miller, is probably quite
a bit more conservative theologically (I know many people think he's
a flaming liberal, but I don't think he's nearly as liberal as
Haught) than the scientists who lined up to testify in Dayton (only
one of them, Maynard Metcalf of Johns Hopkins, was actually allowed
to testify before the jury, though the others were allowed to have
their testimony entered into the court record). Kirtley Mather, e.g.,
did not have a clear belief in an afterlife and did not believe that
God can interact at all with nature (those two beliefs are
self-consistent, incidentally, as I will be discussing in my book
about the religious beliefs of early 20th century scientists). But
Haught is as liberal as anyone around Dayton, as far as I can tell.

The overall science/religion landscape is far more diverse today than
it was in the 1920s (when there was no readily visible group of
people who accept both evolution *and* the virgin birth &
resurrection), but you won't know that from Haught's testimony--it
was pretty much the old modernism in contemporary form, save for the
injection of a strong dose of neo-orthodoxy...." ~ Ted Davis

Posted by Jonathan Witt on October 4, 2005 11:19
AM
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/
dover_generates_intellectual_ferment.html

Faith, the Environment, and Evolution: An Interview with John F"Jack"
Haught by Phina Borgeson
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/
vol23/4510_faith_the_environment_and_ev_12_30_1899.asp

Haught: Well, when I was in [you know what], I got into reading
Teilhard de Chardin, whose work struck a chord with my cosmic
romantic sense. I have also delighted in Whitehead and his romantic
reaction to the dominant philosophy of his place and time. I find
that Science and the Modern World is still the most influential book
I have read, and the best critique of scientism. I think Whitehead
was the first postmodernist. ..."

Science and the Modern World by Alfred North Whitehead
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684836394/103-8542906-2335850?
v=glance&n=283155

A reviewer: "..Whitehead's book is most useful as a book on the
philosophy of science, as well as a succinct and accurate appraisal
of science in the modern world (modern meaning 17th-19th centuries,
historically speaking). He takes a very "post" modern view of the
extent of science, writing in chapter one, "if science is not to
degenerate into a medly of ad hoc hypotheses, it must become
philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of its own
foundations." At the same time one can imagine his glee over such
recent developments as chaos theory. Whitehead would disagree with
Einstein, and side with Bohr: God does indeed play dice. ... if you
are interested in a hermeneutical perspective on science's recent
past, and are willing to see science as much a faith committment as
any other world view (a la Kuhn, for example), you will benfit
greatly from this book. If you take E.O. Wilson's (1998) position
that science is immune to the effects of [you know what], culture,
ideology, and dogma, you will not like it. If you take Rouse's (1987,
1996) and van Huyssteen's (1998, 1999) position that even so-called
"hard" science is thoroughly corrigible and foundationalist, you
will. Whitehead's ideas are opposed to scientific materialism from
the get-go, and he is absolutely against dogmatism on the part of
science or philosophy. ..."

Process and Reality ..1927-28) by Alfred North Whitehead

A reviewer: "... Foundational work for Process Theology, December 23,
1999 ...Whitehead's book is a seminal work on freedom and becoming.
... This is where Process Theology got its start.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 29 11:57:24 2006