Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

Ted,

Thanks for your reply - which I am currently studying - and for your kindly-expressed good wishes. However, the forum must wonder what prompted all this, for the original is missing from my mailbox, and from the ASA archive. Here, again therefore, is what I wrote:

Hi, Ted,
Thank you for your informative post.

You speak of the "...various ways in which one might respond..." to the paradox of a God of love who accomplishes His creative work by its antithesis, evolution, and have outlined the one that makes best sense for you. I have to say, mine would be a more Occam-directed approach - involving the ditching of Darwinism. After all, why should a mere theory - now (thanks to Jonathan Wells) stripped of its time-worn 'proofs' - continue to hold its adherents in thrall? 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.

Vernon

www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <janmatch@earthlink.net>; <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:57 PM
Subject: 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 31 15:27:49 2006