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

Karl, thanks for engaging in the conversation.

Karl said: 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.

I respond: Well, he did it with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; he did it with
Moses; he did it with David; he did with Christ; and he did it with Peter,
particularly in the Roman tradition. He also did it negatively with Pharaoh
in the Exodus narrative, with Nebacudnezzar, and with the evil Kings in the
monarchy narratives. And he did it apparently in the total judgment of
Caananite women and children during the conquest (at least insofar as the
narrative presents things to us).

So, it seems to me this is exactly how God works repeatedly in scripture.
It also seems very consistent with an ancient near eastern conception of
corporate responsibility in which an agent, usually the king, represents the
whole. And in some respects, our western legal notions of agency in the law
derive from this tradition -- a single person can act on behalf of and bind
a multi-billion dollar enterprise of thousands of employees and shareholders
by signing a contract (covenant); a single person, the King or an elected
leader, can bind a nation to treaties and wars. No problem at all. Henri
Blocher draws on this notion of corporate agency to some extent in "Original
Sin: Iluminating the Riddle," as does Bernard Ramm in "Offense to Reason:
A Theology of Sin."

Karl said: 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?

I respond: I think it fits very well with a Pauline reading of Genesis. It
seems indisputable to me that Paul saw Adam as an agent of all mankind. As
to the scientific picture, I don't see how the scientific picture says
anything at all about what is essentially a social-legal and spiritual
concept. The scientific picture deals with the biological and to some
extent social development of groups, but unless one is a strong determinist,
this doesn't elide or even deal with questions of the moral and spiritual
responsibility for individual agents acting on behalf of the group.
Karl said: As G. K. Chesterton observed, this is the only Christian
doctrine with rigorous empirical proof!
I respond: I like this chestunt too, but on reflection it's a bunch of
hooey from an evolutionary perspective, isn't it? From an evolutionary
perspective, we aren't "fallen," we just are who we are -- we fight and
compete, we sometimes act altruistically and often don't, and all of it can
be explained in terms of our evolutionary history, biologically or
socially. "Fallen" means we somehow at some time were able to relate to God
in a way that did not implicate all the results of the fall. The empirical
observation of present day war, selfishness and violence doesn't establish
that prior broken relationship at all.

Karl said: I don't see the problem with our sinful natures emerging slowly,
through time, rather than suddenly, as suggested in the biblical
story.

I respond: I do -- it seems to elide any sort of "right" relationship, or
at least "right trajectory," from which humanity has willfully deviated. I
don't necessarily see a problem beyond hermeneutical concerns with that
deviation happening over some period of time, as Clark Pinnock suggests in
"Tracking the Maze". But it seems to me that a slow and inexorable emergence
of sin tends to lead to Pelagianism -- we slowly drifted in one direction,
and we could through application of diligence slowly move back. The
Biblical narrative, it seems to me, is one of real potential broken in
"Adam" and then restored only in Christ.

At the very least, given the importance theologically of this kind of back
and forth, I don't understand any suggestion that theology "must" abandon
any kind of traditional view of Adam and the fall. It seems to me that
there is significant space for theology to engage in a dialectical
conversation with the scientific story in a way that doesn't insist on a
fundamentalistically literal reading of scripture and that doesn't make
theology, IMHO, the "loser."

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:12 PM, karl.w.giberson@enc.edu <gibersok@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
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.