RE: [asa] a theological exercise

Dennis,

AIG makes a reasonable effort to incorporate science when the weight of
science causes their prior view to be relocated to a certain land: Silly
Land. A county judge acquiesced to a new ruling preventing out-of-county
businesses when we showed him that he was disallowing the county to buy
products that could only come from out-of-county businesses. After an hour
or so of discussions with county officials, the judge finally said they
would change because "we don't want to look silly". I've found that change
may not occur until one finds himself standing in the land of Silly, till
then , why budge?

The AIG reference makes one interesting statement worth discussing.

"Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses
the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs science, when
it actually was a matter of science vs science. Unfortunately, Church
leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the
argument for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical
to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big
bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp#r11> 11
Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who opines
that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this
topic than an atheist or agnostic."

An interesting pirouette! I agree that Church leaders erroneously
interpreted scripture to argue against the science of the day. But, it is
far more identical to those who claim the universe is 6000 years old than it
is those who claim big bang theory is correct. They spun this around!

I believe the great difficulty today, compared with Galileo's day, is the
number of passages that are affected by BBT and evolution; it is not a
matter of kind, but of degree. BBT and Evolution are far more potent in
lines of evidence than Galileo's arguments for Copernicus' theory. [Galileo
proved Ptolemy wrong to the Jesuit scholars, but could not disprove Tycho's
model, nor prove Copernicus was right.] Yet, Galileo was only opposing a
handful of verses, some appearing as allegorical as the "four corners"
verse. His great opposition came from what has been mentioned already: the
Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist dogma which shackled many church leader and with
the hammer of the Council of Trent. These Peripatetics, as they were known,
were entrenched in their faith in this interpretation, which mandated
Geocentrism.

I find the Galileo/Copernicus analogy striking to today's conflict.

Georg Cooper

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dennis Venema
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:36 PM
To: David Opderbeck; drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: ASA list; George Murphy
Subject: Re: [asa] a theological exercise

>Has there ever been a systematic theology that is consistent with evolution
based on scriptural interpretation alone, or has all theology had to change
with our better understanding of nature??

For an interesting exercise, replace "evolution" with "a moving earth" and
see how you fare.

>Right or wrong, it's as internally consistent as a YEC saying science
cannot be used to interpret scripture, period.

YECs do use science to interpret scripture, actually, with respect to a
non-fixed earth. See here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

On 6/3/08 1:24 PM, "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack said: I would say that compared to those who accept old earth views
but deny evolution, that the YEC are more consistent in their view of
scripture.
 
I respond: I guess it depends on what you mean by "more consistent." Yes,
some OEC's are kidding themselves when they try precisely to correlate
"days" with "ages." But many have a more subtle and coherent hermeneutic /
epistemology / view of natural theology: findings from science can
illuminate, but not contradict, scripture. So if the "days" can be
understood as a literary framework, or the geneologies can be understood as
sketchy and incomplete, that's fine. Yet saying Paul was "wrong" about Adam
cannot fit the framework, and so something about the reading of the book of
nature must be mistaken. Right or wrong, it's as internally consistent as a
YEC saying science cannot be used to interpret scripture, period.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:10 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

Ok I dont agree with this correction, and I did not mean to generalize that
all evangelicals make that argument. I guess what I am saying is that this
is a frequent argument that I hear, and I dont really know what to say to
them. And I guess it is for the following reason: they are correct in a
sense. Accepting the fact of human evolution does make things like original
sin, Man made in the image of God, the historicity of Adam, etc., change
their meaning. One's view of scripture is likely to change too, (for
example Paul being mistaken about Adam not being historical.) Has there ever
been a systematic theology that is consistent with evolution based on
scriptural interpretation alone, or has all theology had to change with our
better understanding of nature? I would say that compared to those who
accept old earth views but deny evolution, that the YEC are more consistent
in their view of scripture. Those that have dared to stare into the eyes of
the beast, and come out with a cohesive view of both science and
Christianity are a vast minority I am afraid.

On Tue Jun 3 15:44 , "David Opderbeck" sent:

I think you're right about the "evangelical-in-the-pew." However, I'm not
sure you're right about this as a matter of evangelical theology generally.
I'd venture to say that most serious evangelical thinkers (yes I know
"serious" is a loaded term) accept standard geology and an old earth because
science dictates it. So they will change their interpretations of scripture
and their theology (here, significantly, the nature of "death" before the
fall) based on scientific conclusions. But the boundaries of how this works
aren't infinitely elastic. The rubber band goes "sproing" and the
conversation stops when it comes to denying any kind of historical fall --
maybe for good reasons, or at least for reasonable reasons.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 3 18:25:51 2008