Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

David,
I think you're too optimistic. Yes, there are books by educated men that
reflect the understanding of the Reformers, but they do not represent the
popular view. With about half of the US population certain that human
beings did not evolve, John is closer to reality. I don't know how many
are persuaded that the King James IS the pure Word of God, but there are
many. And a large proportion will insist that they do not interpret the
Word, but take it "just like it is." Combine "it's the inerrant Word of
God" with "so it [my reading] can't be wrong," produces irrefutable
dogmatism. ASA has individuals better educated than most, but I am
wondering about the response to my paper in the September /Perspectives/.
Dave (ASA)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:45:07 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
John, I used to say stuff sort of like this. But it isn't really
accurate. Maybe it reflects the uninformed, populist view in the pew, or
some more extreme statements, but it doesn't fairly reflect evangelical
theology as a whole.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bible is the literal word of God."
Are you referring to inerrancy? If not, what do you mean? Does the
Bible only become the word of God as it is received? If so, how is that
different from the classic position about scripture of theological
liberalism?

Inerrancy is not equivalent to literalism. Even the Chicago Statement --
which I think is a deeply flawed document -- makes this clear.

Moreover, many thoughtful evangelicals recognize that some sort of
forumlation of inerrancy is important, but not of first importance, and
certainly not related to salvation per se. Read John Stott's
"Evangelical Essentials" and this will become clear. Or read the section
on scripture in Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology.

In addition, most evangelicals who accept inerrancy also accept the
principle of accommodation or some similar hermeneutical principles.
See, for example, Peter Enns' "Inspiration and Incarnation," or John
Walton's commentary on Genesis. Or see Donald Bloesch's "Holy
Scripture." Or the volume of essays entitled "Inerrancy and Common
Sense" published by Gordon Conwell a number of years ago, or "Inerrancy
and Hermeneutic" published by Westminster. Or "The Scripture Principle"
by Clark Pinnock. Have you reviewed all these carefully?

In any event, a hermeneutical question such as "was Adam a real person"
can't be settled with hand waiving about accommodation. Accommodation is
a valid princple, but someone needs to explain where it stops.

 
On Nov 15, 2007 6:49 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

George,

I whole heartedly agree with you that " putting together some concordist
scheme" is absolutely the wrong way to go about engaging our culture with
the gospel. That has been what I was presented for all my life and now I
am convinced that it just doesn't work and a disservice to believers. I
now think a more allegorical approach to Genesis is what God intended
with the scriptures.

However, Dick is right in pointing out that this issue of concordism is a
"boulder" on the road to Christ. The reason why is that the Central Dogma
of the Evangelical church is The Bible is the literal Word of God, which
leads to Christ, which leads to Salvation. And of course Genesis and Adam
are an integral part of Bible. And I agree that a too literal and
fundamental interpretation of the Bible does lead to a skewed version of
Christianity, not the least of which is their schizophrenic view of
science.

But as opposed to some of the more thoughtful traditions like Lutheran,
this concordism is all I have ever heard in any church that is considered
evangelical and is doing anything proactively to increase its membership.
And in fact as you saw from Michael's excerpt of the statement on
Inerrancy yesterday, it is considered inseparable from the gospel. From
my perspective there is a one to one correlation between literalism and
evangelicalism, and it is not negotiable. So this is what gets
perpetuated and why it is a problem. That may not be your perspective or
experience in your community but it is mine. I attend a 6000 member
Southern Baptist church and I think I am the only there who would say
what I just did above and then there wouldn't even be me there if any of
the staff ever read this email. In contrast, although they all may have
better theology and better science as well, I have never met anyone from
the Lutheran church that wasn't born into it.

That is why I have been arguing on this list from the beginning is that
what is needed is an effort to get the true message of science into the
evangelical church without them perceiving it as compromise and
surrendering to liberal theology. This includes preserving the doctrine
on natural revelation and also preserving a rational worldview that
acknowledges the basic facts of science and coexists with them.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:26 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA

Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

The idea that Gen.1-11 is "a boulder" on the road to Christ assumes
precisely what I am challenging - that one must come to Christ by
starting with the early chapters of Genesis, & Adam in particular, & work
toward Christ. We don't. Of course if people have been previously
bothered by, & have left the faith because of, the notion that they have
to accept the historicity of Adam &c as essential to Christianity then
that problems needs to be dealt with somehow. But IMO that's better done
by pointing out the the historicity of Adam isn't essential to
Christianity than by putting together some concordist scheme. Even if
they're convinced of the truth of the latter they're still likely to be
stuck with a skewed version of Christianity in which Adam is of more
importance relative to Christ than he should be.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Hi George, you wrote:

>People start with themes like "In search of the historical Adam" or "Who
was Adam?" instead of viewing matters in light of what the NT says about
Christ.<

Simply in terms of what is important and what isn't, accepting Christ
ranks at the top without question. Whether there was an Adam or wasn't,
or where and when he may have lived if there was such a fellow, for a
believer, may be a matter of mere curiosity. So why stir the pot?

For one thing, truth matters. For another, there are untold millions of
nonbelievers who feel they needn't bother with a book at all that starts
with an unbelievable fairy tale. And for those who believe the Bible is
supposed to be a reliable witness, the Bible can indeed be such witness
if the first passages of the first book are shown to be reliable.

Why do millions fall for YEC when we, the intelligentsia, know with
absolute certainty it can't possibly be true? It is because they believe
the Bible is true and this is the only way it can be interpreted. An
historical Adam in the context of human history they can believe in may
persuade some to escape the clutches of the evil YECmeisters.

So I for one believe that lining up all the evidence both that which
confirms the New Testament and that which confirms the Old Testament in
the long run can have positive benefits. There are many road blocks in
the way of potential believers. Genesis 1-11 can be one giant boulder in
the middle of the narrow road leading to Christ. This is not to say
there aren't others as well. But this is one I think can be removed, and
why shouldn't we spend effort to remove it if we can?

Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:44 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

One execllent theological reason to prefer a fully evolutionary view in
which H. sapiens - & thus Jesus - really is related to chimps & other
species is that this provides a way of understanding the biblical
promises that "all things" are saved, reconciled to God &c through the
Incarnation. I set out this argument a long time ago in a PSCF (then
JASA) article available at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html .

A major failure in many of these discussions is the failure to approach
the issues christologically. The usual Evangelical approach is, if I can
coin a term, adamological.
This is almost exactly 180 degrees wrong. People start with themes like
"In search of the historical Adam" or "Who was Adam?" instead of viewing
matters in light of what the NT says about Christ.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
To: David Campbell
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Aside from the various other ways in which this particular question is
causing me angst right now, here is something else that bothers me about
it. It seems to me that this question presents a particularly thorny
issue for how and to what extent "science" may be used to intepret
scripture vs. how and to what extent we need to assert scripture over
against a particular scientific data point.

When we consider the age of the earth / universe and the creation "days,"
it seems to me that it is easier to be flexible. There are any number of
exegetical questions before we even get to the scientific ones.
Moreover, messing with the age of the earth / universe involves basic
physical constants like the speed of light that can't really be messed
with under the anthropic principle. Finally, the theological issues seem
somewhat less thorny -- though the question of death before the fall is
not a small one.

When we consider the exegetical issues concerning Adam, IMHO at least,
there seems to be significantly less flexibility, at least within even a
moderate "inerrancy" framework. IMHO, without disrespect to those who
think otherwise, it does too much damage to the doctrine of scripture and
to the narrative framework of scripture to suggest that the accommodation
principle -- which I think is a valid principle generally -- goes so far
as to render these texts essentially non-historical. So for me, this
seems to be a place in which it might be appropriate to say that, while
scripture does not teach "science," it does to some extent bear on
"history," such that it might be appropriate to question the naturalistic
assumptions underlying particular scientific models.

In particular, it seems to me that the genetic continuity between humans
and our presumed chimp ancestors, and population gentics studies based on
presumed times of divergence and rates of mutation, do not render the
traditional understanding of Adam impossible. They render it difficult,
and perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. It is possible that God
specially and miraculously created Adam using pre-existing hominid genes;
and it is possible that God caused imago Dei man to be dispersed
geographically in such a way that the histocompatibility diversity we
observe today happened faster than the models assumed. This does not
violate any fundamental physical constant such as the speed of light. It
is a different kind, or at least a different degree, of question than the
age of the earth.

At the same time, we can tentatively propose some other scenarios. But
in my view, it's unfair to equate some push-back here with "YEC
thinking." Perhaps, like the wine at Cana, this really is a place at
which methodologial naturalism, without the illumination of scripture,
does not really reflect the truth of history.
On Nov 12, 2007 3:03 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, evolution does not absolutely rule out a single couple as
ancestral to humanity. Glenn Morton's model develops this line of
thinking. It posits some rather long gaps in the genealogies and has
other difficulties, but then there are difficulties in any approach to
reconciling the scientific data and Genesis 1-11. It is much easier
to have rapid change in a small population. Any particular mutation
important to making humans human would have its origin in a single
individual. Many other variant scenarios with some sort of historical
Adam are also possible.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams" 
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.