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

David--

Your response doesn't make any sense to me, so please help me understand. First, after dismissing Karl's proposals as "just hubris", you declared that "This sort of thing is why I cannot identify myself as a TE." It sure seems to me that you have a pretty clear idea of what a "TE" is, since you are obviously sure that you *cannot* identify yourself as such. You don't have the option to say that you "don't presume to have a great answer" to my questions; you just need to explain why it is that you cannot identify yourself as a TE.

In case it's not obvious, I'm objecting to your uncharitable (yes, I think you were uncharitable) attachment of some unbecoming notions of science-faith "warfare" to Karl's proposals, and then, weirdly, to "TE." Since you probably consider me to be a "TE" I think it should be clear why I would want something more than the equivocation you provide below.

Now, it seems to me that "TE" refers to a person who asserts that God has created, and that evolutionary explanations are true. (See the ASA Creation Commission statement if you think I've gone wrong here. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/commission_on_creation.html#Commission%20on%20Creation ( http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/commission_on_creation.html#Commission%20on%20Creation ) ) Now, I can think of three reasons a person might be unable to self-identify as a TE.
1. They're not a theist.
2. They don't think that evolutionary explanations are true.
3. They don't think that evolutionary explanations and theism can both be true.

Disentangling 2 and 3 is, I think, very important, especially for people who use others' positions as a reason to disclaim "TE."

And if all of this seems boring to you, I'd be curious on your feedback regarding "theistic embryology" and whether Christians ought to embrace it. Your responses to my previous comments on that subject all dealt with Kuyperian themes and notions of Christian scholarship, which are quite beside the point.

Steve Matheson
  
>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/09/08 1:07 PM >>>
Well, they're more than "single-paragraph musings," they're a summary of his
thesis. Your two questions here are good ones, and I don't presume to have
a great answer for them. All I can say is that, if being a "TE" or "making
peace with Darwin" means accepting all three of Giberson's propositions as
mandatory -- and I don't think I'm overreacting to the term "must" -- then
I'm not one. But as others here have noted, this may not be the case, so
perhaps I am one. Until the definitional landscape become more clear, I
guess I prefer to self-identify simply as a "Christian" who believes the
universe is God's creation, however it physically came about.

As to the use of the term "warfare," I don't think that was uncharitable at
all. "Must" is an assertion of authority. Assertions of authority imply
conflict and war, not dialogue and synthesis. But as I said on my personal
blog and probably should have said here, I haven't read Giberson's book yet,
and it got a qualified blurb from John Wilson, whom I respect, so maybe
there is more context in the book.

Re: Beth's "the classic abdication of responsibility": oh, puhleeze. You
have no idea how I've struggled to understand these questions, and I think
lots of other people have as well. "I don't know" isn't an abdication of
responsibility, it's an acknowledgment of human limitations. Do you presume
to know the answer to the problem of evil? If you do, please explain it --
if not, just admit that there are some things you don't know along with the
rest of us responsibility-abdicating mortals.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> After suggesting that Karl's single-paragraph musings on a weblog are
> "warfare thinking," David writes:
>
> "This sort of thing is why I cannot identify myself as a TE."
>
> David, please consider answering these questions, which might help me with
> some confusion I have regarding your use of the term 'TE'.
> 1. What is a TE?
> 2. How does one determine whether one is a TE?
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/09/08 8:52 AM >>>
> 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?"
>
> This sort of thing is why I cannot identify myself as a TE.
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:03 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)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.