Re: [asa] a theological exercise

But -- IMHO there is a significant difference between reinterpreting some
scripture verses about the sun rising or about "days" of creation, and
delving into the nature of sin and atonement. Whatever the result of
theological reflection eventually ought to be, it just isn't fair to compare
revisioning our understanding of humanity and the fall with revisioning the
geocentric universe. Yet, maybe that reflects my own historical
situatedness to some degree.
It's also wise, I think, to consider the extent to which science can
revision theology by looking at some of the directions process thought and
panentheism have taken. Some of the articles in, say, Zygon, can't possibly
be acceptable to Christian theology under any meaningful definition of
"Christian." There is always *some point* at which the rubber band goes
sproing, isn't there?

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> Sometimes I find it amazing that Star Trek (TOS) addressed so many of
> society's peculiarities, for lack of a better word.
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68790.html
>
> In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise reveals to an ancient society
> that worship their Oracle, that for centuries, they have actually been
> inhabitants of an asteroid-sized spaceship that is not guided by an Oracle,
> but rather a super computer, that was programmed by an even more
> ancient civilization, to flee the destruction of their solar system. Their
> entire reality was blown wide open.
>
> To respond to the objection of altering one's theology to meet scientific
> facts, I would say, "Why not, it has been done before and you engage in it,
> as well. If you didn't, you would count yourself among the few holdouts for
> Geocentrism." If they respond that the Bible no where teaches Geocentrism, I
> would say, "well, we can say that *now*, and we pretty much have to,
> otherwise the Bible would be in error."
>
> =========================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]*On
> Behalf Of *drsyme@cablespeed.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:31 PM
> *To:* 'ASA list'; 'George Murphy'
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] a theological exercise
>
> My difficulty with your analogy of the scientist changing a theory in the
> face of new evidence, is that most of the evangelicals that I have talked to
> about this, claim that altering one's theology to meet scientific facts is
> not acceptable. To them, there would be no possible scientific evidence
> that would get them to reconsider. They understand the implications of
> evolution, the most difficult being those David O mentioned, and most are
> not at all interested in even trying to see if there is a consistent
> Christian theology because the only revelation that they are concerned about
> is biblical. In other words they will criticize because you have changed
> your views based on science, and the conversation stops there.
>
>
>
> *On Tue Jun 3 14:07 , "George Murphy" sent:
>
> *
>
> The first book we were assigned when I started seminary was a small volume
> by Helmut Thielicke, *A Little Exercise for Young Theologians*. I'd like
> to propose here what I think is an important little exercise for Christians,
> young & old, who want to engage in theology-science discussions, &
> especially those relating to evolution.
>
> Let me begin with a scientific preliminary. One of the tasks of a
> scientist, & especially a theoreticians, is to try to see how well some new
> discovery fits in with what he/she has up until that point regarded as the
> best theory in the relevant field. E.g., are the data generated when a new
> particle accelerator comes on line consistent with current theories of high
> energy physics? If they are consistent without any tinkering with the
> theory then they can be regarded as predictions of noverl facts by that
> theory. Perhaps some relatively minor adjustments of secondary aspects of
> the theory are required. Or maybe there's just no natural way in which the
> new data can be understood within the theory's framework - in which case
> all but diehards will decide that a new theoretical framework is needed.
>
> OK, assume now that somehow - & "how" is not something I want to debate now
> - it has been demonstrated scientifically, beyond any reasonable doubt, that
> present-day human beings have descended from pre-human ancestors without any
> unexplained gaps - physical or mental - in the process. (Some might claim
> that that's already been done but again that isn't the point now.) The
> exercise is to see how well this could fit in with your theology - with the
> way that you understand God, creation, sin, salvation and other aspects of
> the faith. Does the evolutionary reality flow naturally from your theology,
> does that theology require some modification in its secondary aspects, or is
> there just no way to make human evolution part of your theology without
> changing it (the theology) totally? A really serious effort should be
> made to accomplish the task in some detail. It need not produce a
> dissertation but has to be more elaborate than "Evolution is how God
> creates" or "The Bible rules out evolution."
>
> & now the point of the exercise. Only a Christian has honestly tried to do
> this - not necessarily succeeded but tried - has any business criticizing
> the views of Christians who do accept human evolution.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.