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

Agreed. Bottom line: by working this thing backwards, it is easy to see that
the mess we have in the church today on science is due to an undue literal
emphasis on the scriptures, more specifically Bibliolatry. That is why I an
unimpressed with all these theological attempts to spin literalism and
inerrancy. If God wanted to give us scriptures that we could take literally
that would line up with science, I think He would have done it very
differently. Because He didn't, it is easy to conclude that He never
intended that.

I think He wants us to think and use spiritual discernment instead. Keep in
mind that broad literacy is a relative new and Western concept and therefore
unlikely that that would have been God's chosen mechanism for communicating
truth to the masses over all of history. That is why I think natural
revelation is so crucial.

I remain open to being wrong and am going to read Dick's book which he says
will persuade me otherwise, but like the good advice against making the
bacterial flagellum a hill to die on to prove IR and owning the onus to
prove that all junk DNA has function, why do we need to make literalism a
hill to down on as well?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:27 PM
To: dopderbeck@gmail.com
Cc: john_walley@yahoo.com; gmurphy@raex.com; dickfischer@verizon.net;
asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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:
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> 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 <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>

To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

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

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> 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 <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> Opderbeck

To: David <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com> 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.