Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

George, this is completely unfair. Keller is not purporting to be an expert
on faith and science issues. This is a very brief statement relating to a
broad, populist apologetic book, not a Ph.D. dissertation. And far from
being timid, he's putting his tush on the line within his denominational
context by saying as much as he did. He has an outstanding church in New
York City through which many, many people have come to Christ and grown in
the faith. I've personally benefitted greatly from his church's programs.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:07 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> *"then you have "theistic evolution": God just started things years ago
> and everything has come into being through the process of evolution.* *"*
>
> I know nothing of Keller beyond what I've seen on this list & this
> definition of "theistic evolution" moves me to put him in the category of
> those who life is to short to waste time on. What he's defined is of course
> straight deism. Frankly, I think too many folks in ASA & on this list spend
> too much time on timid Reformed & Evangelical theologians.
>
> (N.B. - the pejorative term in that last sentence is "timid," not
> "Reformed" or "Evangelical.")
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
> *To:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> *Cc:* asa <asa@calvin.edu> ; Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2008 1:51 PM
> *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—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,
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> > Among Rich Blinne's point is this one:
> > 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.
> >
> > Ted hopes to illuminate this point.
> > Dawkins, I assume was citing the same survey that Keller also cites.
> > Results appeared both in Nature and in Scientific American. The
> > authors,
> > Larry Witham and Edward Larson, repeated the famous survey of the
> > religious
> > beliefs of American scientists that had been carried out by atheist
> > psychologist James Leuba in 1914. They used exactly the same
> > instrument,
> > and the same reference set: Members of the AAAS, who are listed in
> > "American
> > Men and Women of Science." They polled two groups: regular members,
> > plus
> > members of the NAS. Leuba did not poll NAS members per se, although the
> > NAS
> > did exist then (it was founded during the Civil War to help the Union
> > cause). Rather, Leuba polled "starred" scientists listed in what was
> > then
> > called "American Men of Science." The star system was discontinued
> > about 30
> > years later, but at that time the most "eminent" scientists had
> > asterisks
> > next to their names in "American Men of Science." (Incidentally, until
> > relatively recently, the word "scientist," which was coined in the
> > 1830s,
> > was not much used. You were a "man of science," and indeed most of
> > those
> > men were in fact men. There was no term "woman of science," as far as I
> > know. Virtually all of the "starred" scientists were men.) I won't go
> > further into the story of the star system, but it's a real hoot.
> >
> > So, what Larson & Witham found was, that from the general group of AAAS
> > members, 39.3% affirmed belief in a personal God, as vs 41.8% in Leuba's
> > survey. This contradicts Leuba's personal expectation and hope that, as
> > science advanced in the 20th century, religious belief would decline
> > markedly. On the other hand, Lebua found that among "elite" (ie,
> > starred)
> > scientists, 27.7% believed in God. Larson & Witham found just 7.0%among
> > the NAS members. (Interestingly, among mathematicians in the NAS, the
> > figure doubles to 14.3%, which is consistent with the fact that more
> > mathematicians from the general AAAS group are also believers (it's
> > nearly
> > half). No surprise to me, given the transcendental character of
> > mathematical truths.)
> >
> > Here's some of the data I refer to:
> >
> > http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
> >
> > So, Dawkins and Keller were citing the same survey.
> >
> > Ted
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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.
Received on Mon Feb 25 20:57:33 2008