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

John -

I sent off my previous post on this thread about 2 minutes before getting this. Your 2d paragraph below is right in suggesting that literacy - i.e., the ability to read the Bible - is often overemphasized as a means of communicating God's Word. But the proper response is definitely not an appeal to natural revelation, as I've already shown. It is the proclamation of Christ - the living voice of the Gospel. Note that in the part I quoted from the ELCA constitution, this comes 2d (after Christ himself) & before the Bible as expressions of the Word of God. Proclamation here of course includes formal preaching but also one to one witnessing &c. It isn't limited to what is done from the pulpit. Scripture is not ignored - it is the basic resource for preaching. But the idea that people are to be converted just by giving them Bibles & telling them to read is off base.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Walley
  To: 'D. F. Siemens, Jr.' ; dopderbeck@gmail.com
  Cc: gmurphy@raex.com ; dickfischer@verizon.net ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 7:43 AM
  Subject: 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: 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.
Received on Fri Nov 16 08:01:36 2007