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

Some preliminary comments then I'll vote. Note that I don't know Karl Giberson, and have never met him or otherwise interacted with him AFAIK.

First, I am grateful to Karl for doing what none of the culture warriors have done, which is actually asking whether their accusations against public school teachers are true. The response of the ASA listserv so far is alarming and disappointing. I would think that at least some on this list would hasten to distance themselves from the indefensible behavior of Johnson & Co. and to applaud the attempt to evaluate the fairness and accuracy of one of the most damning and scurrilous accusations that is uttered by the shock troops of the Culture Wars. It may be that Quincy, MA is not highly representative of American public schools, but I'm inclined to think that Karl is onto something that should have been obvious, and I will make it a point to read his article in PSCF.

Second, I think that David and others have overreacted to the word "must" in Karl's post. Characterizing this as "warfare" talk is profoundly uncharitable, in my opinion, and David's denunciation of Karl's book on the basis of a single paragraph on a weblog is, in my opinion, a hasty and unfair judgment.

Finally, I note that the histrionics surrounding the discussion here of what is "non-negotiable" regarding our Christian narrative include a striking lack of the kind of humility that some commenters have already claimed is lacking in Karl's one-paragraph comments. Given the history of Christian challenges to scientific discovery, I would think that defenders of beliefs based in early Genesis would be just a little more circumspect regarding when and how to man the barricades.

Now my votes.

1. We must abandon thinking of Adam and Eve as real people or even surrogates for groups of real people

NEITHER. I don't think Christians need to abandon thinking of A&E as real people. I do think we have to abandon any claim that humanity has physically descended from those two people. For many evangelicals, those are the same thing, but then *that's* the theological issue we need to tackle. And if by "surrogates" he is referring to the federal model of the fall, then I strongly disagree with Karl here. Personally, I don't cling to any particular theory regarding Adam and Eve, but I don't see why there can be any compelling reason to "abandon" thinking of them as representatives.

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

MUST NOT. Well, actually, a qualified "must not." I don't know how the Fall happened, and so I'm quite flexible on its nature as "an event," but I am committed to its status as a turning point in human history. Perhaps unlike many other evangelicals, I am quite unconcerned about my ignorance of the details of the event.

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

NEITHER. Karl says we should "consider" this, which is fine, and referred to "some sense" of the imago dei, which could be taken to mean almost any combination of the aspects of human nature, so this one just isn't controversial or even particularly interesting. Mike Gene's claim regarding "animal rights" is strongly overstated; one need not refer to the imago dei to argue for animal rights, nor need one conclude that an animal imbued with "some sense" of the imago dei is morally equivalent to a human being. Perhaps what Karl means here is that Christians should be ready to accept the reality of continuity between certain aspects of human nature (e.g. consciousness, reasoning, etc.) and the attributes of other animals. I agree with that, but it's only a problem for a Christian who is over-invested in modern scientific definitions of what the imago dei is. Because I view the imago dei as a mysterious attribute (conferred by the "breath of God"), I am unconcerned by the likelihood that neuroscience will "explain" attributes previously thought to be its exclusive domain.

Steve Matheson

>>> "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> 06/09/08 6:03 AM >>>
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.