Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

I think he's trying to negotiate a difficult question given that Redeemer is
a PCA church with a broad constituency, and given the importance of a
historical Fall in Reformed theology. And he's speaking as a popular pastor
and apologist, not as a scholar, so he's making distinctions in places where
we might not make them.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Is he saying "there is no God", "theistic evolution", and "young-Earth
> six-day creationism" are the three options with insurmountable
> difficulties?
>
> It's unclear the way he's written it -- it sounds like he is instead
> equating "theistic evolution" with the position that "there is no God"
> (option #2), where his option #1 comes from the previous sentences regarding
> the Catholic view on a Historical Fall. If this is what he meant, then he
> has confused theistic evolution with atheistic evolution. But later, he
> describes one particular variant of TE (or possibly OEC), as "I also think
> that there also was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth
> probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural
> selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in."
>
> I can't quite tell what view he thinks DOESN'T have insurmountable
> difficulties. Maybe he didn't try to answer that question.
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Martin
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2008 12:51 PM
> *To:* Ted Davis
> *Cc:* asa; Rich Blinne
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution
>
>
> First Things published an interview with Keller this morning re: his
> book. (See: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=981). Not sure we
> should really call him TE (He personally disavows the term - includes TE as
> one of the options with "insurmountable difficulties"). He says (highlights
> added by myself):
>
> At the same time, if you say, "There is no God and everything happened by
> > evolution," naturalistic evolution—*then you have "theistic evolution":
> > God just started things years ago and everything has come into being through
> > the process of evolution.* You have young-Earth six-day creationism,
> > which is "God created everything in six 24-hour days." To me, all three of
> > those positions have perhaps insurmountable difficulties.
> >
>
> Looks like it is the whole divine action issue that is confusing him -
> either God did it or evolution did it. This isn't surprising since many of
> us that hold to a TE / EC view have difficulty articulating it clearly (I
> do) even if we aren't confused ourselves (don't think I am :-) ).
>
> Again, the important point is that Keller reiterates that these "origins
> issues" are red herrings & that he can accept those with TE / EC views as
> orthodox believers. It's an important first step.
>
> thanks,
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 25 14:36:02 2008