RE: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

> As advocated within the ASA, TE/EC typically asserts that evolution has
> little philosophical or theological significance and so is already
> explicitly in disagreement with those who claim that we need to radically

> modify our theological or philosophical views in light of evolution.

David,

I find the above curious and revealing about the church community you belong
too. A friend of mine also from AL just recently spoke this week at our RTB
Christmas party here and referred to presentation as his "TE Coming Out
Party". I mentioned this earlier when I submitted the "7 Words You Can't Say
in Church".

My experience has been quite the opposite of your statement above. I for one
have been saying all week that the church needs a radically new theology in
order to process TE. Ever since the party I have been in email and in-person
debates with members who are struggling with theological implications of TE.
I have received numerous questions like the historical Adam, original sin,
common descent, inerrancy, ad nauseam, simply because this concept is so
foreign to them theologically. In fact, my observation is that it is the
theological filter than prevents them from receiving the scientific evidence
of TE when you present it to them.

To most of the evangelical church in my world, evolution is the last line of
defense and the point at which you start finding the limits of Christian
charity. They will barely tolerate OEC and when you try to follow it up with
TE, then you get responses to the effect of "See I told you he was on the
slippery slope to evolution with that old earth stuff" and you end up
losing what little credibility you barely had with them in the first place.
Evolution is the litmus test for heresy and YEC is the gatekeeper to prevent
it. TE is a theological bridge too far in my world.

In fairness I will say we had several Bio and Chem professors there that
were very complimentary and favorably impressed and one was quite vocal
about it but that was the exception rather than the rule. A more typical
example is one of the Professors from Luther Rice Seminary here which
happens to be Bernie's alma mater, and although he is a brilliant
philosopher and theologian and we have a cordial relationship, we are just
on different planets on this. The presenter did an excellent job of
delivery and everyone was open to it but it left them in an irreconcilable
theological quandary.

I think this illuminates the difference between TE in the more intellectual
denominations as opposed to the rank and file evangelical church body, but I
don't think your statement above applies across the board.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:10 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

> The problem is, David, that you have not spoken (and from all indications
> cannot) speak 'objectively' about evolution across the board.

I haven't looked in detail at what was said in the material that the
DI is objecting to. When I say something in a class, I emphasize that
we're talking about a biological process.

> Once you acknowledge the philosophical, theological and sociological
> dimensions of (claims to) evolution, the 'objectivity' of evolutionary
> universalism becomes deeply problematic. Yes, I know this is a challenge
to
> the theistic evolutionary (TE) views that you and others at ASA strongly
(at
> least outwardly) espouse. But in fact, it is the same thing with such a
> view: ASA apears to be against harmonizing with views that are not TE/EC.

Such aspects certainly exist and deserve attention, but they're not
within the scope of, for example, teaching invertebrate zoology. A
caveat that I am not talking about anything outside of biology when I
am talking about evolution would seem to address what's needed within
that context. However, I don't see how the non-biological claims
seriously challenge TE/EC views. As advocated within the ASA, TE/EC
typically asserts that evolution has little philosophical or
theological significance, and so is already explicitly in
disagreement with those who claim that we need to radically modify our
theological or philosophical views in light of evolution.

Bearing in mind that the views expressed on this list are far from
representative of the ASA as a whole (thus "Many people on the ASA
list" rather than "ASA" is the proper subject for the claim about
harmonization), I'm not sure exactly what harmonization is wanted.
Harmony between those who are less in favor or more in favor of
evolution is possible if they do not see it as an issue of vital
importance. Harmony between those who insist that evolution must be
fought at any cost and those who think evolution is OK is not
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.