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

I am all for what Giberson says, at least, with these three thesis.
Rejecting historical concordism in the Genesis account would lead to
#1. As for #2, I certainly reject the idea of a cosmic fall. Of
"fall" in general though I'd want to be careful, saying that there was
a time when sin was not in the world, and now there is sin in the
world, so the fall in some sense happened, but was probably not a
punctiliar event.
As for #3, I suppose it would make sense that other species could
'evolve' into the imago dei as we did, but I don't think we have any
evidence that that has yet happened. I've never seen a chimpanzee
cathedral or a dolphin worship service. This could, however, lead to
some interesting thought concerning the place of man's priestly role,
a sort of mediating and drawing creation up towards God, and
anthropomorphizing creatures "upwards" as it were. I think C.S. Lewis
had something to say along those lines.

> On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:52 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>> Well, I ordered Karl's book, but I'm kinda regretting it now. These
>> "musts" are just hubris, and disastrous hubris, IMHO.
>>
>> Isn't this just "warfare" thinking from the "other side?" Why "must"
>> theology concede these critical points to "science?"

Sorry David, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Why
'must' theology concede these critical points? Because we are people
of two Books. When the two don't agree, you can't simply stick your
head in the sand and hope the conflicts resolve, you have to find new
ways to try and understand what the Words and the Works of God mean.
I'm quite convinced that something along the lines of what Giberson is
saying is the best way of resolving the conflicts without simply
selectively ignoring vast fields of either Book.

Bethany

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 10:04:16 2008