Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

He's wrong on all 3, though to different extents.

1) The word "surrogate" is loaded. There were hominids who can be considered "the first humans" - though how widely spread in space & time we might debate - & the biblical Adam & Eve can be considered as their theological representatives.

2) The idea of a "fall" from a perfect state does have to be abandoned. But if God is not to be considered the creator of sin (as distinguished from use of a process in which sin is possible & even likely) then some distinction between humanity as God intends it and humanity as it is is needed.
If "the fall disappears from history" in the way he suggests, then salvation becomes simply part of creation.

I really do hate to be self-promoting but again will refer to my 2006 PSCF article http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf as evidence that one can develop a model that (a) is consistent with what we know of human evolution & (b) retains the idea that the first humans deviated from God's intention for them in a way that corresponds theologically with the "fall" story of Genesis 3.

I know that some on the list object that this model is not consistent with what they think is the traditional Christian account. The point now though is that it is not as far from that account in crucial ways as what Giberson demands.

3) This may be valid to the extent that rationality is a component of the imago. But that is not the whole meaning of the imago.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Martin
  To: ASA list
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:03 AM
  Subject: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

  Karl Giberson's "Saving Darwin" is being released tomorrow. Today he published an article on my blog called "Evolution in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge?" where he summarizes his 2002 PCSF article "The teaching of Evolution in Public School". Giberson's primary point is that the evidence does not support the claim (by Philip Johnson et al) that atheistic and anti-Christian ideas are being promoted through the teaching of evolution in public schools.
  However, it is Giberson's provocative conclusion that really got me thinking. He states that the war in the public schools will not be concluded until the Evangelical Church confronts the theological challenges posed by evolution. He proposes three changes that must occur:

  1. We must abandon thinking of Adam and Eve as real people or even surrogates for groups of real people
  2. The Fall must disappear from history as an event and become, instead, a partial insight into the morally ambiguous character with which evolution endowed our species
  3. We must consider extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our species

  Of course, the majority of Evangelicals would strenuously claim that we must NOT do any of the above, and to do so would mean the abandonment of orthodox Christianity. Others (including myself) would claim that neither a clear-cut "must" nor "must not" is mandatory at this time. Ie. We would rather live with the tension between the theological and scientific claims while further work proceeds.

  Quick Poll: Must, Must Not, or Neither?
  I'd be interested in hearing the response of other list members to these three "musts" that Karl has proposed. Personally, I'm not going to commit either way on any of them just yet although I'm leaning towards "must" for #1, "must not" for #3, and leaning neither way for #2.

  You can also interact directly with Karl by leaving a comment on his article at the link provided above.

  --
  Steve Martin (CSCA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 07:58:53 2008