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

I don't think evolution entails that we "must" do any of this.

But I will note that creationists and many in the ID movement would be *glad* to agree with Giberson. They would be happy to assert that finally making "peace with Darwin's Dangerous Idea" entails such steps as many will interpret such peace as complete capitulation on some core theological beliefs.

What's more, Giberson seems to be agreeing with them that evolution *does* have consequences when it comes to our social and political reality. "Extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our species," takes one right into the animal rights camp and raises the question whether biologists are immoral for experimenting on other species.

-Mike Gene

  ----- 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)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 6/7/2008 11:17 AM

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 08:53:46 2008