Re: [asa] a theological exercise

I would further suggest that AiG will wait not only until they are in Silly
Land, but, as the astute judge notes, when the general rank and file can
easily recognize they are in Silly Land.

As far as practicing astronomers / geologists / biologists etc, etc, are
concerned AiG arrived in Silly Land a long, long time ago.

Nice quote from AiG on Galileo ­ too bad nobody informed the Church back
then that this was merely an issue of science. Sheesh.

On 6/3/08 3:25 PM, "George Cooper" <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> 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 ³we don¹t want to look silly². I¹ve 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 discussingŠ
> ³Confusion 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.11
> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp#r11> 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.²
>
> 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 Galileo¹s 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 Galileo¹s arguments for Copernicus¹ theory. [Galileo proved
> Ptolemy wrong to the Jesuit scholars, but could not disprove Tycho¹s model,
> nor prove Copernicus was right.] Yet, Galileo was only opposing a handful of
> verses, some appearing as allegorical as the ³four corners² 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 today¹s 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 ³evolution² with ³a moving earth² 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 18:38:22 2008