Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

Vernon,

I hardly think that Jon Wells has "stripped [evolution] of its time-worn
'proofs'," though if I did think that I would be relieved of having to deal
with this particular paradox. (The paradox of theodicy would still be with
me, however, b/c independently of evolution's truth status it is abundantly
clear that the universe is very old, that life has existed on the earth for
a very long time, and that the death of "nephesh" creatures preceded our
arrival on the scene by a very long time.) Wells' work on Haeckel's embryos
probably has more merit (IMO) than most of the other parts of his book--a
very lengthy article in the current issue of "Isis" (the journal of the
History of Science Society) actually cites Wells and other
anti-evolutionists and comes to a conclusion that leaves some room for
Wells' views on that issue. But I find Francis Collins' points about the
human genome far more persuasive than alternative explanations; ditto for
the existence of numerous creatures that really do seem to be transitional
forms (what counts as a transitional form for John Morris is really a full
set of fossil forms with very small gradations between them, and I think
we're unlikely to reach that point in most cases, given the large changes in
phenotypes that can occur and the likelihood of fossilization and the small
part of the earth's crust that we actually can investigate easily); and I
find traditional creationist explanations of biogeographic diversity and the
details of the fossil record to be completely inadequate.

Thus, I don't think of evolution as a "mere theory." Your choice of words
here, incidentally, is exactly the same as mine, when I describe Bryan's
view of evolution, and also the view of most of the IDs I have spoken with.
When scientists state that evolution is a "theory" rather than a "fact," as
Ken Miller did vociferously at the Dover trial last fall while sitting not
thirty feet away from me, they absolutely do not mean "mere" theory.
Indeed, as Miller emphasized, in science the facts are more likely to change
than the theories! I know you do not agree with this "high" view of
evolution as theory, but since I do I am burdened to resolve or address the
paradox.

Thus, I can't apply Occam's sharp edge at this point. One must not make
things simpler than the truth--as we perceive it to be. For the same
reason, I cannot cut away orthodox theism. Hence, my paradox.

Then, you write:
Can there be any real doubt that this doctrine is the sworn enemy of
Christians, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
It is surely time that TEs jettisoned the whole sorry enterprise and sought
a better, Bible-based, interpretation of _all_ the data which have a bearing
on origins.

I respond:
A lot of people agree with you, Vernon, but not me. Leaving evolution
aside, completely aside, I find the "crucified God" theology to be
manifestly biblical--more biblical than any other approach to theodicy that
I have yet seen, GIVEN MY ACCEPTANCE of the great age of the earth and life,
which makes it impossible for me to accept the view that animal death must
have followed chronologically the first human sin. As I say, this is
completely independent of evolution; the age of the earth is what it is,
regardless of whether or not evolution produced all of the living things
that have lived here. And, my views on the Bible and astronomy (ie, the
solar system, etc, leaving aside the big bang and the whole of cosmogony) do
not permit me to take the Bible as a reliable source of information about
theoretical science, including all of the data that bears on origins.

I imagine you are not surprised by my responses.

I wish you very well, Vernon,

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 18:58:36 2006