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

I don't think any of these points "must" be conceded. But I don't think
they "must not" either, except maybe #3. It all depends on how you
interpret that part of the Bible and your theology. I don't see how
evolution rules any of them out.

Melody

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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?<http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-in-public-schools-threat-or.html>"
> 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)
>

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 11:04:17 2008