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

Beth said: 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

I respond: I don't think being people of two Books means theology "must"
concede its central narrative to science. IMHO, the process is more one of
ongoing dialectical conversation in which *both* discussion partners must
sometimes give and neither can claim to dictate what the other *must*concede.

And I don't think I'm advocating sticking our heads in the sand. I think
the key here is that we are "*people*" of two Books. As "people," there
comes a point at which we simply cannot figure everything out. It may be
that the places Giberson identifies are just such places at which our
present human limitations do not allow us to reach the kind of definitive
conclusions Giberson seems to want to impose. That's just life and the
human condition, isn't it? Isn't it sometimes part of "faith" to say, "this
affirmation flows so importantly out of other key beliefs that I need to
affirm it, even if I can't completely justify it?"

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
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.