[asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

 
 
In a message dated 10/9/2006 7:25:55 PM Mountain Standard Time,
dopderbeck@gmail.com writes:

An important thing to realize in making this distinction is that, whatever
reasonable things might be said in some ID publications or by people like
Dembski, *in actual practice* the ID movement is dominated by "God of the gaps"
theology in this second sense.
Excellent points, I think. Here's why I think this is so: it has little to
do with any theological problems with TE. All the theological problems
could be overcome. The core issue is hermeneutical: do the "kinds" in Genesis 1
refer to a fixity of species, and do Gen. 1 and 2 require that Adam and Eve
were separate creations? The NIV Archeological Study Bible, for example, in
the note to Gen. 1:2, states

If ['evolution' is] taken in a historical sense (the theory that everything
now existing has come into its present condition as a result of natural
development, all of it having proceeded by natural causes from one rudimentary
beginning), such a theory is sharply contradicted by the divine facts revealed
in Genesis 1 and 2. It is explicitly stated several times that plants and
animals are to reproduce 'according to their kinds.... Moreover, the creation
of Adam is sharply distinguished from other aspects of creation, and the
creation of Eve is descriged as a distinct act of God. Gen 2:7 (in the Hebrew)
clearly teaches that Adam did not exist as an animate being before he was a
man, created after the image of God."

Setting aside why an "archeological" study Bible would contain such a
footnote, this is the crux of why ID is so compelling to most evangelicals. If TE
proponents want to gain traction among evangelicals, general theological
arguments, straw man ID knock-downs, and vague references to "allegory" won't do
it. They need to present a solid, compelling exegesis of Gen. 1 and 2 that
accounts for the references to "kinds" and for the creation of Adam and Eve
within an evolutionary framework.

I don't disagree with David's observation about Genesis 1-2, although I
think the issue of "kinds" probably is a much less important factor in popular
anti-evolutionism than the Adam & Eve issue, and also much less important than
the additional issue of death before the Fall (which Ted Davis claims is the
#1 such issue).
 
It is also worth pointing out that many people have presented a "solid,
compelling exegesis" as David asks for (Waltke, Wenham, Blocher, Hynes, Kline,
etc.). I agree very much with the observation in another post that a
significant weakness in Francis Collins' book is that he simply waves his hands and
talks about "allegory" rather than making the case for a better reading from
solid scholarship (or at least pointing readers to a reference where they can
find such an exegesis).
 
But I think this is a separate (even if not unrelated) issue from the "god
of the gaps" theology that dominates the ID movement in practice.
 
To set out the whole picture as I see it, there are TWO dominant aspects to
"popular" anti-evolutionism among Evangelical Christians.
1) Aspect #1 is the assumption that evolution is in conflict with the Bible.
 With the various issues mentioned above -- most of which can be dealt with
pretty easily by exegesis of Genesis that resepcts its literary and
historical context. The stickiest point there being Adam and Eve and the Fall in my
opinion.
2) Aspect #2 is the "god of the gaps" assumption, which is basically the
view that "natural" explanations exclude God. If "natural processes" and "God
did it" are viewed as mutually exclusive options (as is pretty clearly the
case with Phil Johnson), then the Christian who believes God is the creator of
life must reject natural explanations like evolution. I think this fallacy
maybe reflects insufficient appreciation of God's sovereignty over nature.
 
As I have thought about these things in recent years, I have become more
convinced that 99% of Christian anti-evolutionism boils down to the two things
above, and that they are of approximately equal weight. And I think it is
helpful to recognize them as separate problems and deal with them separately.
 
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 10 19:49:32 2006