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

I overstated that here and nuanced it on my blog: "If this is what it means
to be a TE, I can't be one." I hereby amend my comment here, for all the
posterity that may care, in that fashion.

I'm not trying to dodge your question, but I honestly don't think it's easy
to answer, because the term "evolutionary explanations" isn't well defined.
Evolutionary explanations meaning exactly what, and pertaining to exactly
what?

Let's say, for example, that:

(a) I generally accept universal common descent, but I believe God did
something directly and physically in creating Adam and Eve involving direct
manipulation of existing hominid cells;

(b) I generally accept universal common descent, but I believe God did
something different with respect to humanity made in his image, even if that
involves only the immaterial "mind" or "soul."

(c) I accept universal common descent with respect to animals and humans but
generally reject sociobiology.

(d) I accept universal common descent with respect to animals and humans,
generally accept that most aspect of human behavior are rooted in
evolutionary history, but believe humans are able to act with genuine will
and agency towards each other and God, in particular in response to God's
supernatural revelation to them.

(e) With respect to any of the above, I reject open theism or panentheism,
and I assert that God's primary causation orders creation with no
metaphysical "chance."

Am I accepting or rejecting "evolutionary explanations" in the above
scenarios? I think that even in (d) I'm to some extent rejecting
evolutionary explanations.

What I personally don't want is for some term to box me in to a particular
view of God's agency, human agency, or epistemology. Based on his brief
summary, it feels to me that's what Giberson is doing by using the term
"must."

I want to just stick with the classic, orthodox, unembellished term
"creation." I am not a "creation-ist", I'm a "Christian," and as a
Christian, I believe the universe is God's creation. I'm open to and eager
to learn about God's creation from his two books of scripture and nature,
recognizing my cognitive limitations and acknowledging some apparent
tensions between the two books that right now I can't resolve. That's all.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> 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* <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*<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* <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* <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
> *<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*<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
>

-- 
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.