Re: [asa] a theological exercise

A short note that will be passed over as 'mere semantics' - sadly because it seems to pay no attention to the discussions that have happened at ASA list in the past month, particularly the excellent contribution by Murray Hogg to help clarify the disciplinary specific meanings of 'evolution.' Since George continues his polemic, let me just repeat that saying 'human evolution' is misleading because human beings are more than merely physical (or 'natural,' but that can be muted when speaking with natural scientists) - he SHOULD say 'biological evolution of human beings' - which is what he means, as Don Nield noted.
 
Yes, I have certainly considered how such a view as George's would 'fit in' with my theology. Alas, as Christian in the human-social sciences, a highly-elevated theory of evolution is more a barrier to than an enhancement of my understanding. So, yes, it then became entirely reasonable, yet perhaps no less mysterious, to criticise Christians who "accept human evolution" because humans are more than 'biology-only' of 'physical-only' entities.
 
Regards, G.

 

--- On Tue, 6/3/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Subject: [asa] a theological exercise
To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 10:07 PM

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/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 4 07:10:25 2008