George,
Ok, this is finally a response that I feel like I can offer some meaningful
rebuttal too. All of the others have been quite frankly over my head which I
will freely concede.
Three things struck me about your Westfall quote below:
1) He doesn't contest that natural religion (revelation) is the
foundation and in fact laments the fact that they have neglected this. This
sounds to me more like a simple issue of proper balance and a both scenario
instead of an either/or like I pointed out to Allan using his example of the
Family Circus cartoon. If you are willing to concede that then you and I are
in complete agreement. I would be happy to sign up for a theology that
reveals the cosmos in light of the cross and natural revelation.
2) The comment that the absorption in natural religion undermines
Christianity needs some context. While I can understand that in his day as
being valid because it takes from the supernatural of Christianity which are
equally important if not moreso, today's context offers very different
dynamics. As we have discussed Dawkins acknowledges natural revelation but
instead of concluding natural religion instead of supernatural religion he
concludes no religion. So while theism may compete with supernaturalism in
how we see God manifested in creation, they still coexist harmoniously, and
this is better than allowing natural revelation to be denied altogether to
justify atheism, which is what Dawkins does.
3) This concept of theism undermining Christianity is exactly what
Cornelius Hunter says with his concept of Theistic Naturalism and now I see
where he gets that from. I find it ironic that you both agree on that and he
concludes ID while you conclude the cross. But like I say above, I think the
correct solution may be the proper balance of both, not one at the expense
of the other. I think the context makes all the difference and whereas in
Westfall's day theism swung the pendulum too far away from supernaturalism
which was perceived as a negative, today it serves to swing the pendulum
back towards theism and away from atheism which is a good thing in today's
context.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 7:46 AM
To: John Walley; 'Dick Fischer'; 'ASA'
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
John -
I don't dispute your experience in an SBC church & won't defend all aspects
of the Lutheran tradition: We aren't, in practice, all that great at
personal evangelism (though it's hardly true that all Lutherans are born
into the church). But I will says that the "Central Dogma of the
Evangelical Church" as you sketch is seriously defective.
1st, the idea that the Bible is "the literal truth" for Evangelicals runs
aground on the fact that Evangelicals in general don't understand passages
referring to Baptism & the Lord's Supper literally. water gets left out of
"Born again of water and the Spirit" when new birth is considered & "This is
my body" gets turned into something like "This will remind you of my body."
Of course one can present various arguments (weak IMO) that these passages
shouldn't be understood literally but they require appeal to some
interpretive principle which is seldom if ever made explicit. (My purpose
here isn't to debate baptismal regeneration or eucharistic real presence but
just to point out this inconsistency.) While Lutherans do understand these
texts "literally," there also have some fundamental theological reasons for
holding a "high" view of the sacraments.
2d, the "Dogma" that "The Bible is the literal Word of God, which leads to
Christ, which leads to Salvation" gets the emphasis wrong. While it is not
perfect, the relevant statement in the ELCA's constitution gets it right:
"This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as
the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
a. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything
was made and through whose life, death and resurrection God fashions a new
creation.
b. The proclamation of God's message to us as both Law and Gospel is
the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed,
beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel,
and centering in its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
c. The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the
written Word of God. Inspired by God's Spirit speaking through their
authors, they record and announce God's revelation centering in Jesus
Christ. Through them God's Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain
Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world."
I.e., Christ is the Word of God in the primary and fullest sense (a),
the same Word who is proclaimed in Law and Gospel (b) on the basis of the
same Word written (c). That ordering makes clear that, among other things,
the Word of God is something living & active, not a static collection of
propositions.
3d, you have it almost exactly wrong when you suggest that "natural
revelation" provides some kind of protection against "liberal theology."
Historically, "natural religion," which has been an almost inevitable
consequence of emphasis on "natural revelation," has led to ignoring or
abandoning large parts of what is distinctive about Christianity in favor of
a general theism. I've quoted this before but it bears repeating - from
Richard S. Westfall's Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England
(Yale, 1958), pp.106-107:
"While the virtuosi [scientists in today's parlance] concentrated
vigorously on the demonstrations of natural religion and proved to their own
satisfaction that the cosmos reveals its Creator, they came to neglect their
own contention that natural religion is only the foundation. The
supernatural teachings of Christianity received little more than a
perfunctory nod, expressing approval but indicating disinterest. Although
the absorption in natural religion and the external manifestations of divine
power did not dispute or deny any specific Christian doctrine, it did more
to undermine Christianity than any conclusion of natural science."
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Walley <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'George Murphy' <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; 'Dick
<mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer' ; 'ASA' <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
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 <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 Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: David Campbell <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com>
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 08:25:36 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 08:25:36 EST