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

Hi Steve,

“Mike: Yes, there are many that will take this as one more reason to exit the evolution discussion (and, as Rich points out, this makes it difficult for many of us). However, in some forums (like this ASA list) we need to tackle these issues directly & not avoid them because someone else may mine-quote us.”

I agree these are very important issues; so much so that I have moved things around to make it the topic of my next book.

What’s troublesome is that Giberson piggyback’s these issues on the ID Movement, which begs for a reaction from the ID Movement (I would not be surprised to see his pathway to peace showcased by the DI). And in doing so, he doesn’t come across as being all that different from them. That is, he seems to agree that a scientific theory in biology, constructed under the limitations of methodological naturalism, mandates some rather radical gestalt shifts not only in core theological views, but also in the socio-political realm.

- Mike Gene

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Martin
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Bethany Sollereder ; Rich Blinne ; David Opderbeck ; ASA list
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

  George: Some good points here. On #1 dealing with the historicity of A&E as individuals and as "surrogates" are indeed separate issues. And I agree on #3 as well – I'll be interested in hearing Karl's response to this (part of my question to him that I'll post later today).
  On #2 and "salvation becomes simply part of creation": I'm always suspicious when I see the word "simply" used in this way (ie. simplifying someone else's idea in ways that they may not intend). I think you are referring to the fact that creation & redemption are indeed very much related & have lots of overlap, but that Karl's position (from your reading) neuters the essentials of redemption theology. Is this what you mean?

  Re: repeatedly referring to your paper on Original Sin, personally I have no problem with that – a very important contribution to the discussion. I just wish there was more discussion on it. Any chance you (or someone else) can arrange a forum where there can be dialogue on that paper specifically? Maybe a PCSF exchange? Or maybe some electronic forum with a couple of theological dialogue partners who can critique / exchange ideas? I think that would be helpful for those of us not trained in theology.

  David: I'm not sure this needs to be a case of "theology conceding to science". These re-articulations need to be done only after a lot dialogue between theology & science. That is why I'm not now in the "must" camp (and maybe never will be) … but I'm also open to hearing reasons why a change may be required. Ie. An absolute "must not" should wait until further explanation is given. Anyways, I see you've posted a more detailed response to Karl directly – I'll be very interested in his response.

  Mike: Yes, there are many that will take this as one more reason to exit the evolution discussion (and, as Rich points out, this makes it difficult for many of us). However, in some forums (like this ASA list) we need to tackle these issues directly & not avoid them because someone else may mine-quote us.

  thanks,
   
  On 6/9/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bethany Sollereder" <bsollereder@gmail.com>
    To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
    Cc: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:03 AM
    Subject: 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.

    No. To say that Genesis 2 & 3 make theological statements about the first humans is not concordism in any reasonable sense of the word.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

  --
  Steve Martin (CSCA)

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

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.1.0/1492 - Release Date: 6/9/2008 10:29 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 10:37:17 2008