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

David said: 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.

The classic abdication of responsibility! Well, why bother discuss
anything at all? Of course I don't think we can ever achieve full
knowledge of objective reality, but I at least feel that we can get
closer than we are today. This argument has been used far too many
times to carry any weight in my mind. It's just an evasive move that
avoids facing the best answer: that there was no Adam and Eve.

As for Adam and Eve being the central narrative of Scripture, well,
you should probably take another look. Their historicity or lack
thereof in no way affects the central narrative of Scripture: That God
created us, we sin, and God redeems that sin by sending Jesus.

Bethany

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:16 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Received on Mon Jun 9 11:24:16 2008