Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"

I don't agree that this has to do with the basic definition. It's about
the errant "either (biological) evolution or God" proposition that some
(most?) in the denomination carry around. It is undoubtedly pretty well
rooted in the present denominational leadership's perspectives, as well
as those of most of the laity (though my sense is that is largely by
default to leadership voices, repetition without challenge, and tradition).

Most folks don't leave a denomination (or in the extreme, faith) for a
single reason. Instead it is an accumulation of things, which seems to
be the case with what was quoted from E.O. Wilson. For me (a former
Southern Baptist as well), the first little consideration might have
been becoming aware of the evolution issue as a Junior in college. It
was just sorta there at the time, though no one in my particular church
was making an issue of it (or even broaching it as a subject, really).
But like E.O. Wilson, I left the denomination many years later in
response to a growing accumulation of issues, some of which had to do
with denomination (though not all manifested in my church), and others
having to do solely with changes in my internal convictions.

While one might not agree with the statement as quoted as "the most
important revelation of all", it surely must be noted that this
widespread sensibility about biological evolution being impossible in
God-Creation is one of the most in-your-face and in-the-news aspects of
the public perception of Baptists (Southern Baptists in particular).
That may be why Wilson elevates the matter as suggested in his writing,
particularly given his profession.

I think one should view E.O.Wilson's position as collateral damage in
church life. I seems pretty evident that he was apparently affected
early on by the (needless) "evolution or God" proposition that seem to
be sadly gaining even more traction in conservative evangelical churches
than in the past. You will note that he also uses the word "doubt", a
denominationally-distinctive characterization of the normal processes of
questioning and skepticism that are part and parcel of a growing faith,
and of making the transition from a faith of others to an internalized
faith.

...or so it seemeth to me.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Jon Tandy wrote:

> I think this gets back to the long-standing discussion over whether
> evolution = "change over time" or something more specific. I don't
> think the process of history from Genesis to Revelation (though
> representing a change over time) could be classified as evolution in
> any but a vague sense, certainly not the biological sense that Wilson
> has in mind.
>
> What I think is sad that as a Baptist, or even as a former Baptist, he
> thought (thinks) that biological evolution is "the most important
> revelation of all". This certainly might be true in a small sense for
> a person who makes his living as a biologist, but this is really the
> core of the dilemma. Wilson either never apprehended, or has
> summarily dismissed, the most important revelation of all time,
> certainly of all scripture, which is a covenant relationship with
> Jesus Christ.
>
> It seems the height of arrogance to suggest that the most important
> issue for one 21st century biologist should have been the most
> important revelation for people throughout Biblical history, nay, for
> God himself to have made (or omitted making) as a key component of the
> narrative. When it comes down to it, this elevation of science and
> modern rationality as being more important than what God himself chose
> to reveal as the primarily important revelation, is truly idolatry.
> Dare I say it, after some weeks of discussion about Romans 1 on this
> list? Is this not changing God "into an image made like to
> corruptible man", by thinking that God should think the things
> important that we 21st century intellectuals think?
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:42 AM
> To: John Walley; _American Sci Affil
> Subject: RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
> One cannot say that the Bible does not bring up the notion of an
> evolving universe. Surely, there is a beginning in Genesis and a
> clear end in the Book of Revelation. Thus, I do not know what
> Wilson means by "But most of all, Baptist theology made no
> provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most
> important revelation of all!" Perhaps Scripture skipped over
> details but certainly, there is "evolution."
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 11:01 PM
> To: '_American Sci Affil'
> Subject: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> Here is a relevant and chilling quote from E.O. Wilson from
> "Consilience".
>
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/books/beginnings/9805/consilience/index.html
>
>
>
> On a far more modest scale, I found it a wonderful feeling not
> just to taste the unification metaphysics but also to be released
> from the confinement of fundamentalist religion. I had been raised
> a Southern Baptist, laid backward under the water on the sturdy
> arm of a pastor, been born again. I knew the healing power of
> redemption. Faith, hope, and charity were in my bones, and with
> millions of others I knew that my savior Jesus Christ would grant
> me eternal life. More pious than the average teenager, I read the
> Bible cover to cover, twice. But now at college, steroid-driven
> into moods of adolescent rebellion, I chose to doubt. I found it
> hard to accept that our deepest beliefs were set in stone by
> agricultural societies of the eastern Mediterranean more than two
> thousand years ago. I suffered cognitive dissonance between the
> cheerfully reported genocidal wars of these people and Christian
> civilization in 1940s Alabama. It seemed to me that the Book of
> Revelation might be black magic hallucinated by an ancient
> primitive. And I thought, surely a loving personal God, if He is
> paying attention, will not abandon those who reject the literal
> interpretation of the biblical cosmology. It is only fair to award
> points for intellectual courage. Better damned with Plato and
> Bacon, Shelley said, than go to heaven with Paley and Malthus. But
> most of all, Baptist theology made no provision for evolution. The
> biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all!
> Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of
> God? Might the pastors of my childhood, good and loving men though
> they were, be mistaken? It was all too much, and freedom was ever
> so sweet. I drifted away from the church, not definitively
> agnostic or atheistic, just Baptist no more.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 27 14:21:29 2007