RE: [asa] Ken Ham admits he doesn't have all the answers... (Starlight from farthest star)

to John:
As I think I've noted before on this listserv, it's my opinion that RTB has a bigger problem than the obvious challenges of upholding concordism. Their big problem is Hugh Ross, who has written things about biology that require more than factual correction. Their "scientific credibility", on issues of common ancestry, has been wrecked by Ross' propensity for making things up, and while I think the damage is fixable, the remedy will require revolutionary change at RTB and a dramatic change of heart by Hugh Ross. For this reason, I am uncomfortable with the use of Ken Ham and AIG as whipping-boys of choice on this listserv; there are ways in which Hugh Ross' misconduct is far more serious.

to Don:
I value your call for caution. But the slippery-slope argument you employ is fallacious. Evangelical theology -- to whatever extent it embraces heliocentrism or even the most basic assertions of modern cosmology (the kind learned by kindergartners) or earth science -- has already made profound "concessions" to science. We're already on the slope; just look to the past. It seems to me that the way to protect evangelical theology is not to warn against a "slippery slope" but to recapture a complete and healthy regard for God's creative activities, which are as glorious and majestic when they are "natural" as when they are miraculous. Then, instead of making up stories to halt a slide down a mythical slipper slope, we can turn around and re-ascend the slope. On the way back up, we can re-claim the things of God that have been outrageously misappropriated by the priests of unbelief, and then our little intramural controversy about the number and timing of supernatural even!
 ts will be seen to be a mere curiosity.

Otherwise, your challenge looks more like a declaration of separation of the natural from the supernatural (or "direct"). I won't stand for that; I'm completely against it, in fact. My fondness for the ASA (which, I hope, will soon translate into membership...once I finish paying off my student loans) is based in part on its steadfast rejection of this dangerous error. I hope you don't mean to suggest that a theology that acknowledges the reality of common descent is one that has anything to do with the "possibility of miracles" or the "direct actoin of God in our lives." And I hope you don't really believe that those of us who embrace evolution do so to acqure "scientific respectability." That would be quite an insult, if that's what you really meant.

Steve Matheson

>>> Donald F Calbreath <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> 06/09/08 2:42 PM >>>
Why not formulate an even newer theology that "...takes in to account gradual creation..." and also denies the possibility of miracles, "... but still upholds the rest of evangelical Christianity." Or all of the above, plus denies the direct action of God in our lives ... Or ... The question is: where do you stop? At what point does your position cease to be that of an evangelical Christian? Once again, I think we are placing our desire for "scientific respectability" in first place - I'm not convinced that this is neccessarily a good idea.

Don
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley [john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:30 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA List
Subject: RE: [asa] Ken Ham admits he doesn't have all the answers... (Star light from farthest star)

That is the RTB position on this and I have had that discussion with Fuz and their staff apologist. They are forked on this "appearance of ancestry" position like the YEC's are on "appearance of age". They either have to admit that the evidence is as it looks or that God is deceptive.

But as we have discussed before, due to the theological slippery slope of where this can lead and the potential shipwrecks of people's faith that it can cause, I am no longer certain that this response by RTB is not the prudent one. At least I agree that they need to proceed very cautiously on this.

I think they could maintain a little more scientific credibility by qualifying their response and saying that God could have created us gradually if the evidence showed that but unfortunately I think that threatens their entire concordist model. This needs to be rethought and I think they could greatly contribute to resolving the science/faith debate but helping lead the church in formulating a new theology that takes into account gradual creation but still upholds the rest of evangelical Christianity.

Thanks

John

-

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

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 15:39:54 2008