Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

a) You are over-reading one line in an interview.

b) "Evolution has happened" I think he acknowledged, for which I give him
kudos. But we can make that acknowledgement with different gradiations,
can't we? Do we all have to accept the complete evolutionary metanarrative
in order to be intellectually acceptable? Or can some of us reserve some
areas of agnosticism, or even push back a bit here and there, because of our
theological commitments?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> 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 <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> *Cc:* Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> ; Ted Davis<TDavis@messiah.edu>;
> asa <asa@calvin.edu> ; Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> *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 <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 23:17:34 2008