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

David:

You have framed the question in a very clear and helpful way. My
thinking on this is as follows: all the evidence suggests that our
species and its predecessors shared a steadily evolving gene pool.
This gene pool contained the raw material out of which our physical,
mental and even spiritual natures arise. It is hard to even imagine
what it would mean for God to choose an "agent" and then do something
with this agent that would then spread to all subsequent offspring.
What would happen, for example, to the contemporaries of this agent?
This is not what a literal reading of Genesis suggests and it doesn't
fit naturally into the scientific picture, so what do we have to
commend it? It seems to me that the "Fall" can be understood as that
part of our human natures that evolved to exhibit a pathological
selfishness. As G. K. Chesterton observed, this is the only Christian
doctrine with rigorous empirical proof!

I don't see the problem with our sinful natures emerging slowly,
through time, rather than suddenly, as suggested in the biblical
story. The reality of our sinful natures is a deep theological insight
and one that we should appreciate. There were times in history—think
Rousseau and Marx—when philosophers dismissed the idea of "natural"
sinfulness and ridiculed the biblical insight. But nobody would do
that now. We now understand, as the author of Genesis and the apostle
Paul both did, that we are deeply and profoundly sinful. I see no
reason to insist that the fall be anything more than an affirmation
that this is indeed a true picture of the human condition. (It is
also the reason why "second work of grace" theology always struck me
as suspect, although I am, to a first approximation, a Wesleyan.)

2008/6/9 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:
> Karl, could you explain what exactly oumean by a "literal Adam and Eve?" Do
> you mean literally the first biological humans from which all biological
> humans alive today are directly descended? In that case, I probably agree
> with you. But I don't understand why there couldn't possibly have been a
> literal individual whom God related to in some special way as federal
> representative of emerging humanity. To me, that would constitute a
> "literal" Adam. Do you contend that science precludes even that
> possibility? Or is it just that you would not consider this sort of thing a
> "literal" Adam?
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:46 PM, karl.w.giberson@enc.edu <gibersok@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> At some point we have to say we know enough to take a firm stance. IIn
>> 1632 Galileo believed the church MUST move past literal readings of
>> biblical references to a stationary earth. This was too early,
>> perhaps, but we are certainly at that point now, and have been for
>> quite some time. It is really hard to conjure a scenario for a
>> literal Adam and Eve with what we now know of natural history. Adam
>> and Eve, by the way, mean "Man" and "Woman" in Hebrew. Would we
>> assume a similar story in English was about a fellow literally called
>> "Man"?
>>
>> 2008/6/9 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:
>> > Ted said: Both Mike Behe and Francis Collins have recently argued that
>> > the
>> > genetic evidence is a slam dunk (and please note, ID critics, that Behe
>> > has
>> > been saying this for a long time). If so, then maybe the time is now
>> > for a
>> > rethinking. But "must" seems a stretch, at least to many.
>> >
>> > I respond: we "must" rethink and address this clear evidence is
>> > different
>> > than saying we "must" give up on Adam as any sort of historical person,
>> > IMHO, and this is where I just don't get the "must." We perhaps (I
>> > think,
>> > clearly) "must" rethink biological mongenesis. That is different than
>> > suggesting that science now demands what amounts to the even more
>> > massive
>> > theological, doctrinal, and hermeneutical paradigm shift that, it
>> > seemeth to
>> > me, goes along with no historicity at all to Adam and the fall.
>> >
>> > Instead of demanding, why not humbly but firmly suggest a real and
>> > meaningful dialogue? (The theologians seem for the most part as guilty
>> > of
>> > using "must" as the scientists on this issue).
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My turn now to vote and to comment on this question, which I've been
>> >> thinking about for a long time. I'll keep my response short, however,
>> >> or
>> >> I'd never have time to write it.
>> >>
>> >> I know Karl Giberson quite well, and have known him for many years.
>> >>
>> >> Overall, as should be well known here, my approach to religion/science
>> >> interaction is probably closer to the "complementarity" model than to
>> >> any
>> >> other specific model, including concordism, conflict, confirmation, and
>> >> some
>> >> others I won't label. I don't necessarily think that Karl's use of the
>> >> word
>> >> "must" is improper, in this context, though I would not use that word
>> >> here
>> >> myself. In some historically famous instances, such as the controversy
>> >> about heliocentrism, I do believe that the church "must" respond by
>> >> giving
>> >> up cherished interpretations of certain passages of scripture. But
>> >> when,
>> >> how, and why should all be in our minds. In the Copernican case, for
>> >> example, there was no direct "proof" of the earth's motion before the
>> >> discovery of the aberration of starlight in the early 18th century, but
>> >> by
>> >> that point many Protestants had already accepted heliocentrism and the
>> >> debates about the Bible and the earth's motion were mostly already
>> >> over--I
>> >> ignore here the fact that even today, one can still find believers in
>> >> geocentricity. Catholics weren't yet allowed officially to believe it,
>> >> but
>> >> I find it hard to believe that numerous Catholic scientists did not
>> >> believe
>> >> it at that point. When, then, did heliocentrism become pretty obvious
>> >> to
>> >> those with working knowledge of astronomy? When did it become pretty
>> >> obvious to theologians and biblical scholars that something had to be
>> >> done?
>> >> By the early 19th century, to be sure, the logic that Galileo employed
>> >> against his own opponents concerning the interpretation of scripture
>> >> was
>> >> being used widely to support the acceptance of a similar logic
>> >> concerning
>> >> the age of the earth. Modern creationists mostly accept Galileo's
>> >> logic
>> >> in
>> >> astronomy, but deny its validity on the earth's age. "Must" they
>> >> accept
>> >> the
>> >> latter, esp if they accept the former? "Must" thoughtful Christians
>> >> now
>> >> accept common descent? Is the evidence for it now comparable in
>> >> strength
>> >> to
>> >> the evidence that the earth moves or that the earth is billions of
>> >> years
>> >> old? Both Mike Behe and Francis Collins have recently argued that the
>> >> genetic evidence is a slam dunk (and please note, ID critics, that Behe
>> >> has
>> >> been saying this for a long time). If so, then maybe the time is now
>> >> for
>> >> a
>> >> rethinking. But "must" seems a stretch, at least to many.
>> >>
>> >> If the time is now, then what about the "how"? How should the
>> >> evangelical
>> >> church do this rethinking? IMO, this has to come mostly from the
>> >> inside,
>> >> and be done mostly by theologians and pastors and biblical scholars who
>> >> decide on their own that maybe the scientists are right about this.
>> >> Historically, it's sometimes been the scientists who take the lead on
>> >> this,
>> >> and then the others follow along. The key point here now is that we
>> >> have
>> >> today a group of scientists who accept the divinity of Jesus and the
>> >> bodily
>> >> resurrection -- that is, their christology is orthodox on crucial
>> >> points--but who then also accept common descent driven by natural
>> >> selection.
>> >> That's new territory in the past 100 years, and reason to think/hope
>> >> that
>> >> the theologians will indeed take positive notice. Time will tell, and
>> >> historians aren't in the business of predictions. At least this one
>> >> isn't.
>> >>
>> >> At the same time, I agree strongly with Polkinghorne's affirmation
>> >> (Belief
>> >> in God in an Age of Science, p. 87) that "theology is as entitled as
>> >> science
>> >> to retain those categories which its experience has demanded that it
>> >> shall
>> >> use, however counterintuitive they may be. [for example] Jesus Christ
>> >> will
>> >> continue to be understood in the incarnational terms discussed
>> >> [above]."
>> >> There are some non-negotiables here, IMO, although my judgment of what
>> >> those
>> >> are may differ from the judgments of others. Jesus isn't a bad place
>> >> to
>> >> start looking for those non-negotiables: unlike some of the leading
>> >> science/theology people (fill in Barbour, Peacocke, and Haught, e.g.),
>> >> I
>> >> think that the full divinity and bodily resurrection of Jesus (the
>> >> former
>> >> indeed partly an inference from the latter) are absolutely crucial to
>> >> any
>> >> dialogue with science that is to go by the adjective "Christian." On
>> >> the
>> >> other hand, a theory of the fall (if I may call it that), like a theory
>> >> of
>> >> the atonement, is not the same thing IMO as the fact of the fall and
>> >> the
>> >> fact of the atonement. We are sinful creatures, responsible for what
>> >> we
>> >> choose to do and capable of great moral depravity (if I keep going with
>> >> that
>> >> I'll start to sound like Calvin, who IMO had this part mainly right),
>> >> whether or not there was a first couple who "fell" from innocence; and
>> >> we
>> >> needed and still need the sacrifice of the crucified God to redeem us,
>> >> whether or not the details of that transaction are precisely as Anselm
>> >> conceived them to be. The dangers of denying the fall and atonement,
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> factual sense I am referring to, are not merely theological--though
>> >> "merely"
>> >> here is not meant to suggest that theology isn't very important.
>> >> Rather,
>> >> they are also deeply cultural, social, and intellectual. We tend to
>> >> start
>> >> believing in salvation by our own works, or even that salvation is not
>> >> necessary because we are not really sinful to begin with. Eugenics was
>> >> so
>> >> widely popular with liberal Protestants 80 years ago in no small part
>> >> b/c
>> >> of
>> >> this fundamental heresy.
>> >>
>> >> Now my votes.
>> >>
>> >> 1. We must abandon thinking of Adam and Eve as real people or even
>> >> surrogates for groups of real people
>> >>
>> >> PROBABLY, though this may depend on how we conceive of them. There are
>> >> two
>> >> main empirical problems with an historical, separately created Adam &
>> >> Eve
>> >> ca. 6000 years ago (note please I am talking about the antiquity of
>> >> humanity, not the antiquity of the earth). One, the genetic evidence
>> >> (above) makes it really, really hard to support their separate
>> >> creation.
>> >> Two, the biblical context of cities and agriculture makes it really,
>> >> really
>> >> hard to push the first couple back as far as hominids seem to go--some
>> >> tens
>> >> of thousands of years, at least. They painted the walls of caves, made
>> >> tools, and buried their dead long before cities and agriculture, when
>> >> Adam
>> >> &
>> >> Eve show up in Genesis. I know there might be clever ways to work all
>> >> of
>> >> that out, but I find them quite unpersuasive myself.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >> SEE ABOVE. The fall must be a fact, a crucial and non-negotiable fact,
>> >> about who we are and what we are capable of doing. Regardless of how
>> >> we
>> >> got
>> >> here, here we are and here we find ourselves. I'm starting here to
>> >> sound
>> >> like Harry Emerson Fosdick, of all people (I'm not usually so friendly
>> >> to
>> >> his ideas), and as he once said, "Origins prove nothing in the realm of
>> >> values." Amen. Otherwise, mentally and physically handicapped persons
>> >> really are not worth as much as the rest of us. This is profoundly
>> >> important.
>> >>
>> >> 3. We must consider extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our
>> >> species.
>> >>
>> >> WHY? For starters, let's define as clearly as we can what the "imago
>> >> dei"
>> >> is, and what it is not. Is it the gift of creating, as the Renaissance
>> >> artists and writers surely believed? Is it rationality? Dignity
>> >> (itself
>> >> pretty vague)? All of these things? None of them? Whatever it is,
>> >> only
>> >> humans have it, according to Genesis, and I believe that the
>> >> theological
>> >> content of Genesis *is* its revelational content, so I could be very
>> >> hard
>> >> to
>> >> persuade on this one. (But, don't ask me precisely what the imago dei
>> >> is,
>> >> b/c the Bible doesn't say and I don't know either.)
>> >>
>> >> Ted
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
>> www.karlgiberson.com
>> Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
>> Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
>> Phone: 781-801-2189
>> Fax: 617-847-5933
>>
>> "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
>> jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

-- 
Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
www.karlgiberson.com
Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
Phone: 781-801-2189
Fax: 617-847-5933
 "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.