[asa] Re: Keller on Evolution

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the update. I'm definitely putting this book on my "to read"
list. The key paragraph from my point of view is the following:

What can we conclude? Since Christian believers occupy different positions
> on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who
> are considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be
> distracted by this intramural debate. The skeptical inquirer does not need
> to accept any one these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith.
> Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of
> Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the person of Christ, the
> resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message should one
> think through the various options with regard to creation and evolution.
>

Amen. That is where our witness should be focused, not in with evidential
apologetics (see Allan's "ID, TE, God's action, and Apologetics"
thread<http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200802/0181.html>) no matter
what our view of science or biblical hermeneutics.

The above paragraph is aimed at those skeptical of Christianity because of
science. I think with a small modification, the same message can be
provided to those Christians skeptical of biological evolution. Something
like:

"We agree on the person of Christ, the resurrection, and the central tenets
of the Christian message. Now, let's think through together, and discuss,
the various options with regards to creation and evolution. Ultimately we
may not come to agreement in this debate that is really of secondary
importance. But we should not let this distract us from working together
for the Kingdom of God."

Anyways, having someone of Keller's stature boldly say that evolution and
Christianity are not necessarily incompatible is a great start.

thanks,

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

> I got my copy of the Reason for God in today. The quotes from the blogs
> are accurate. But before I start I would like to put what Keller has to say
> in its proper context. Keller is answering the question of doesn't science
> contradict Scripture and Christianity. Above all else, Keller is a pastor
> and notes conversations he has had with enquirers who are scientists who
> believe that science and Christianity contradict. Since they hold to
> evolution they don't even give Christianity any consideration. The section
> gives Keller response.
> First of all Keller approves of McGrath's rejection of the warfare model.
> In his footnotes, Keller quotes R.A. Torrey (editor of the Fundamentals
> where we got the word fundamentalist) and B.B. Warfield (the father of
> modern inerrancy theory) who stated that some kinds of evolution are
> compatible with Scripture. Keller mentions with approval of Francis Collins
> in the main text. He also responds to Dawkins' citation of a survey where 7%
> of the NAS are believers with the survey published in Nature showing a much
> greater number of scientists who are believers.
>
> Keller then turns his focus directly on evolution. I'll start with a
> couple paragraphs that precedes the ones Steve quoted off the blogosphere:
>
> "[Finding the original meaning of a Bible text] has always meant
> interpreting a text according to its literary genre. For example, when
> Christians read the Psalms they read it as poetry. When they read Luke,
> which claimes to be an an eyewitness account (see Luke 1;1-4), they take it
> as history. Any reader can see that the historical narrative should be read
> as history and the the poetic imagery is to be read as metaphorical.
>
> The difficulty comes in the few places in the Bible where the genre is not
> easily identifiable, and we aren't completely sure how the author expects to
> be read. Genesis 1 is a passage whose interpretation is up for debate among
> Christians, even those with a "high" view of inspired Scripture. I
> personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way
> Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter
> describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the
> theological meaning of the event. When reading Judges 4 it is obvious that
> it is a sober recouting of what happened in the battle, but when we read
> Judges 5, Deborah's Song about the battle, the language is poetic and
> metaphorical. ... [ellipsis mine] I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of
> poetry and is therefore a "song" about the wonder and meaning of God's
> creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened including Genesis 1.
> But it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can't be taken
> literally then none of it can be. That isn't true of any human
> communication.
>
> What can we conclude? Since Christian believers occupy different positions
> on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who
> are considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be
> distracted by this intramural debate. The skeptical inquirer does not need
> to accept any one these positions in order to embrace the Christian
> faith. Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the
> central claims of Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the
> person of Christ, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian
> message should one think through the various options with regard to creation
> and evolution.
>
> Representatives of these different views often imply that their approach
> is the One True Christian Position on Evolution. Indeed, I'm sure that many
> reading this will be irritated that I don't take time here to adjudicate
> between the competing views. For the record I think God guided some kind of
> process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as
> All-Encompassing Theory. [Keller shows he means this in a later chapter by
> taking apart so-called evolutionary psychology much like Francis Collins
> did.] One commentator [David Atkinson] captures this balance well:
>
> *If "evolution" is ... [ellipsis in the original] elevated to the status
> of a world-view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with
> biblical faith. But if "evolution" remains at the level of scientific
> biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason
> for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and
> the scientific explorations of the way which -- at the level of biology --
> God has gone about his creating process.*"
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.