Re: [asa] a theological exercise

Yes it was a big deal in some ways, but remember that much of the official
resistance to Galileo was political and academic rather than theological.
In some ways, the theological issues might have been less important that the
threat to the university professors who were wedded to Aristotelian
philosophy. Hummel's "The Galileo Connection" has a good discussion of
this. So I would still maintain that it's fair to say the human evolution
question is more theologically complex than Galileo's confrontation of
geocentricsm.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:

> It's not just verses about the sun rising: Psalms speak of the Lord
> establishing the earth that it might never be moved, and Joshua's "long day"
> specifically refers to the sun stopping, not the earth. Ecclesiastes also
> states that the sun moves relative to the earth as it hastens back to the
> place of its rising.
>
> > Yet, maybe that reflects my own historical situatedness to some degree.
>
> I would say so: this was no trivial discussion when it took place.
>
> Here's Luther's take on the issue:
>
> *"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the
> earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.
> Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all
> systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse
> the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua
> commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." — Martin Luther, Table
> Talk
> *
> And Calvin:
> *
> **"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'…[are] motivated by 'a
> spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the
> devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"– John Calvin, from
> sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in Bouwsma, William J., John
> Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72
> *
> (hat tip: Quotes from Gordon Glover's excellent blog, Beyond the Firmament)
>
> I would suggest you see it as less threatening because you accept the *scientific
> evidence* as conclusive, not because you've ever gone looking in Scripture
> for theological support for a moving earth. Try it out – you can come away
> saying geocentrism isn't required of Scripture (i.e. explain away all the
> texts that say the earth* doesn't* move) , but try find explicit support
> for a moving earth. As far as I know it can't be done.
>
> I'm always a fan of examining arguments from their source (i.e. looking at
> arguments that the adherents themselves put forward): try reading over the
> arguments from the Association for Biblical Astronomy – they see no
> difference at all between accepting a moving earth and evolution:
>
> http://www.geocentricity.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/3/08 2:15 PM, "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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]<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.