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

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> 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.
>

I did read the PSCF article and found it to be quite well done. Please don't
interpret my silence (or others for that matter) as not agreeing that this
was helpful.

>
> 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.
>

My own take is Karl asks the right questions and rightly points at the areas
made problematic by accepting evolution. I would add that most of these
areas are already problematic for anybody who is non-YEC. The age of the
earth and genetics without accepting evolution (case in point the
conclusions drawn from the diversity of human DNA with Neanderthal being a
separate, extinct species) causes issues. As Denis wrote in his PSCF article
the pre-scientific astronomy of early Genesis are also issues. A rigidly
literal Genesis 1-11 clearly does not fit the evidence. But, what to replace
it with? What David O. was detecting was an apparent parallel certitude that
would come out of an AiG adherent.

Part of the reason why David O. and I are reacting the way we do is that so
far much of the "solutions" don't really satisfy. Oftentimes the electronic
form betrays the tentativeness of our conclusions. If that is the case then
the entire book in context should resolve our misunderstanding. If Karl is
asking us to look deeply into the theological issues I don't believe either
David or myself would have much of a problem. On the other hand, it is the
sense that Karl has "arrived" that we took exception to.

Now my votes.

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

All we need to abandon is monogenesis. Like Steve, I don't see a need to
abandon federal theology. The fact that Jesus has no physical lineage
combined with federal theology shows denying monogenesis to be a
non-problem. How this actually worked out as to whether they are real or
where or when they lived I don't have a clue nor do I think we have enough
information to resolve it. Titus 2:9 seems to also argue against trying to
resolve the unresolvable. Is this not a foolish controversy and argument
about genealogies?

>
>
> 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
>

The Fall is most likely an event however our tendency to only allow for
foward-in-time causation may be getting in the way. Within Reformed theology
the effect of the cross was made effective backwards in time for OT
believers. Again the symmetry of federal theology is helpful. The word Fall
may be unhelpful. The corruption of the World caused by sin would be better
in my opinion. While I tend to have this be an event I won't die for this,
either. Think about how people ask what time and date were you saved. If
your salvation looked more like a process than an event does that exclude
you from salvation? So, if salvation is not necessarily an event why should
de-salvation?

> 3. We must consider extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our
> species.
>
>
I think we need to reconsider what the imago dei is instead. Oftentimes,
it's meant to be rationality, or communication, etc. The fact that
Neanderthal have our FOXP2 gene is problematic here (along with evidence of
"religious" behavior). A better, more nuanced, definition appears to be in
order. There is something unique about humans which the Bible calls our
spiritual nature. As usual, being post-Enlightenment individuals we make the
imago dei overly reductionistic like we do everything else.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

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 16:32:03 2008