RE: [asa] a theological exercise

As an occasional reader of Zygon and having peer-reviewed one paper recently for the journal, I wholeheartedly agree with David. Much of the theology in the journal is certainly not based on Scripture - we see a lot of quotes from people, but very little from the Bible, and certainly a great deal that is very inconsistent with any kind of historic Christian doctrine. We need to be able to draw the line and say "Science is not all-knowing and always 'correct' in what it says". In my own field of neurochemistry, I've seen too many shifts over the last several decades to put much faith in many of the pronouncements of science when it comes to the behavior of the mind. I wouldn't leap too fast onto the latest scientific bandwagon just because it's there.

Don
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck [dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:15 PM
To: panterragroup@mindspring.com
Cc: ASA list
Subject: 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<mailto: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> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto: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<mailto: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.