[asa] comments on evolution and traditional Christian faith

I have not yet seen Jon Wells' new book, so my comments below are not
to be
understood as any kind of "review" of his book. I have been sent a few
excerpts from the book, and I have seen some of the issues it tries
to get
at by seeing some of the comments. This post, then, should be
understood as
a commentary on some larger issues raised apparently by the book
itself, and
definitely raised in comments others have made about it in various
places.
Sometimes my posts to this list are picked up by blogs and other
lists--this
is a public list, after all, and ID is as hot a topic as there is
right now.
  If anyone copies this post somewhere else, it would be misleading
to do so
and unfair to me and to Wells to leave out any of this post,
including this
paragraph.

Here then are my comments on what I have been hearing.

Wells apparently uses the Nicene Creed as an example of the beliefs that
traditional Christians embrace. This has been criticized by some as too
narrow of an approach. I am presently writing a book about American
Protestants and evolution in the 1920s, and as part of that project I am
looking back as well as forward. In evaluating this very issue--what
did
"science" and "evolution" and "Christianity" and "religion" mean to
people
at the time, I am struck by the ease with which many liberal Christians
simply jettisoned the traditional creeds, for various reasons. Many
of them
believed the original form of White's "warfare" thesis--not the
inherently
anti-religious form it takes in modern writers like Dawkins or somone of
their own day like Clarence Darrow--but the softer, gentler form of the
warfare thesis that White espoused. Namely, that modern science has
made
Christian theology incredible, and that traditional Christian beliefs
like
the bodily resurrection, the atonement, and the virgin birth are just
impossible to accept now. On the other hand, the ethical teachings of
Christianity were in their view very important and needed to be
retained,
along with belief in God, though what they meant by "God" is mighty
hard to
pin down.

In looking at these folks, I regard the Nicene/Apostles' Creeds as
decent
working definitions of traditional Christian faith. In my very few
public
writings on this issue in the past, I've implicitly or explicitly used
that criterion. If Wells does this, then IMO he's not off base to do
so.

On the other hand, what Wells apparently fails to realize, is that
even by
this definition of traditional Christianity, it is not hard to find
examples
of Christians who accept Darwinian evolution. Someone who has seen
Wells'
book quotes him as saying, "In other words, a Darwinian who really,
*really*
wants to be a Christian can be a Christian of sorts -- just not a
traditional one." My point here is about this claim. If Wells says
this,
and means by it what I take it here to mean, then he's wrong. If he
doesn't
say it, my comments are still directed at the point it conveys. It's
that
point, which is very often made, that I am commenting on, whether or not
it's actually said in Wells' book. I am led to respond to that point
presently b/c of the combination of that claim with the traditional
creeds
as a tool to help define traditional Christian belief--a tool that, as I
have said, I have used myself for this very purpose in this very
context.

In the late 19th century, Asa Gray defended Darwinian evolution while
expressly affirming the Nicene and
Apostles' Creeds as containing "the essentials" of Christian faith.
My own
view is virtually identical with Gray's. My book will discuss how
thinkers
like Gray all but vanish from the landscape in the 1920s, thus further
polarizing an already highly polarized conversation about evolution
among
American Christians. HOWEVER, as my book will discuss (though only
briefly,
since it focuses on the 1920s), since the second world war and
espectially
since the 1960s the landscape has changed fundamentally. There are now
world class scientists who fully accept evolution and who also confess a
very traditional type of Christianity, with traditional views of
sin/redemption, the bodily resurrection, the miracles of Jesus, etc--
that
is, who confess the
kind of faith that I hold myself, so my attennae are tuned to detect
this.
Francis Collins is the most recent obvious case, but there are many
more--MIT nuclear scientist Ian Hutchinson, Nobel physicists Charles
Townes
and Bill Phillips, Princeton geologist John Suppe, John Polkinghorne,
etc,
etc. The list could be made much longer.

At the turn of the century, the self-styled "modernists" were taking
control of religious colleges and seminaries and telling everyone that
modern science made traditional faith incredible. That helped to set
the
stage for the heated, highly polarized conversations of the 1920s.
Examples
of middle ground, such as the views held by Gray (who had died many
years
before), are very hard to locate at that time. But it *is not true
now*,
and that's the missing historical message that my book will be
stressing,
among others. There are very significant differences between the
"modernists" and their modern descendents, on the one hand (Arthur
Peacocke
and Jack Haught are well known examples of that approach today); and the
traditional Christians who also accept evolution, on the other hand (see
above for some examples). The current controversy over ID tends (as
controversies do) to produce a lot more heat than light, and that is
true on
both "sides" of the issue--which is one of the reasons why I am not
really
on either "side" myself. Just as ID's tend to overlook this type of
crucial
distinction, so do their opponents. My sense is, that many IDs do
actually
believe that Christians who accept evolution can't be traditional
Christians, but the reason can't really be the Apostles'/Nicene
creeds--there is just too much evidence to the contrary. It has to be
something else--perhaps human origins, perhaps something else. My
sense is
also, that many of their opponents actually believe that world class
scientists can't consistently believe the creeds--despite the empirical
evidence to the contrary. They must somehow be refusing to see the
implications of their science, or in some other way committing
intellectual
suicide or dishonesty. The truth, IMO, does not lie on either "side"
as I
have outlined it here. And, most important of all--the failure to
see this
point or acknowledge its validity is harming, not helping, efforts to
resolve the controversy over public education.

As I have indicated, the timing of these comments is related to
Wells' new
book. It would be wrong, however, to take my thoughts as a direct
commentary on his--I have not yet seen his book. I am responding to the
issues that are being raised by those who have. If anyone wishes to
reproduce my comments, it is dishonest to do so without including
everything
in this post, including this sentence.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 30 11:41:02 2006