Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

a) I would think that somebody who's going to say anything about evolution in a religious context would take the trouble to find out a minimal amount about the way it's been dealt with in the Christian tradition. You don't have to be "an expert on faith and science issues" or writing a doctoral dissertation on the subject to know that the great majority of "theistic evolutionists" aren't deists.

b) Evolution has happened & timidity about it is still timidity no matter what one's denominational context. & if you'll note the direction of comment you'll see that my concern isn't so much that Keller does this as that too many ASA members & list participants seem to think that such views on the subject need to be taken seriously.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Steve Martin ; Ted Davis ; asa ; Rich Blinne
  Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 8:56 PM
  Subject: 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
      To: Ted Davis
      Cc: asa ; Rich Blinne
      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 22:17:34 2008