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

My answers are interspersed with the questions.

 William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D. Member ASA
248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/
Want to help a child?: http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198

----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
To: ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 5:03:56 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
Bill:

I oppose this. I lean more toward Dick Fischer's view: Adam and Eve were real people but not the first humans.

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

Bill:

I totally reject this. I don't think the details -- eating a physical fruit -- are necessary, but I think we dispense with a real fall at our peril.

3. We must consider extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our species

Bill:

Rejected.

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.