Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: M-Genesis

I have no trouble in recognizing other people's prejudices. :)

2008/6/10 D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>:
> We'll get consensus only when we are rendered perfect in glorification. At
> least I cannot imagine unending arguments in the new heaven and earth.
> Meanwhile, we are kept from agreement at least in part from the beliefs we
> hold either implicitly or explicitly. George expresses some ideas
> explicitly. What may underlie them is more difficult to determine. I note
> that there is a common notion that time (necessitated by change)somehow
> applies to both creatures and Creator. It is not recognized by those holding
> the notion. William Lane Craig is almost unique in trying to bridge divine
> temporality and non-temporality, and I believe he's mistaken. The fact is
> that one of the most difficult problems for human beings is recognizing our
> underlying prejudices.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:13 -0500 "George Cooper"
> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Jim wrote: "What does it take to bring this discussion to a common
> consensus? What's still missing in the way of evidence or perspective?"
>
>
>
> Perhaps an unearthing at Mt. Sinai of a Genesis supplement written by Moses,
> and dated accordingly, that would give us more specifics of the first two
> chapters would prove handy. J
>
>
>
> Allow me to posit that such may be happening. The shovel, however, is not a
> spade but a telescope; the ground is not that which is below, but is the
> ground above; the account is not the reading of unearthed script but in the
> observing of works: creative works above.
>
>
>
> This is a process view of creation, where evolution is the primary one, both
> biological and otherwise. Here, God is the omnipotent physicist, engineer,
> and ultimate inventor of the forces and phenomena that drives us and the
> universe to where we are today.
>
>
>
> Sampler: The six days were, in my view, six actual days experienced by
> Moses, not the YEC view of days. We can see protoplanetary-like bodies in
> regions describable as "without form and void" (e.g., AB Aurigae). We can
> see evidence to suggest that the flat stellar accretion disks, greater than
> a billion miles in radius, might be described as "waters". It is plausible
> that protostars might suddenly burst forth in light from within its dusty
> shroud (e.g., V838 Mon). Where the light that God called "Day" is actually
> that which we call daylight: light from the Sun.
>
>
>
> I apologize for throwing an entire cow on the table when we all prefer to
> have our stakes cut and cooked before consumption, but I feel it may be time
> to tackle this interpretation. If these points, and many more, however,
> could be deemed as plausible, I see it answering many of the conflicts at
> hand.
>
>
>
> M-Genesis, or so I call it, is not developed enough to include appropriate
> refutation of the counter arguments. Its skeletal framework, however, may
> be to the level worth discussing. If so, I would prefer to take advantage
> of the superior features found in the ASA forum, rather than emails. [I'll
> assist anyone new to this.] I would like help from the scholarly here
> regarding whether this boat will float, and not that interested in why other
> boats (i.e., TE) are superior.
>
>
>
> Jim said: "Or, who do we shoot?"
>
> Are you ready for target practice? J I won't be that easy, though I'm only
> an amateur at all levels. [I'm fairly good with a sling shot, but have
> killed neither lion nor bear. ]
>
>
>
> "Coope"
>
>
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:39 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?
>
>
>
> But David, from all appearances, "real and meaningful dialogue" really
> translates to "real and meaningful (but endless) dialogue". Most of the
> information and various perspectives is in play. In my former life, there
> was a tendency for the designers and scientists to endlessly twink and
> optimize new designs. At some point, they had to (as they put it) "shoot the
> engineer" and move it into production.
> I am dubious that there is any real driving force toward a consensus unless
> perhaps it is a challenge like that offered by Karl G. But even that may not
> suffice because the data is (and always will be, to some extent) by nature
> incomplete (we do not have access to much of the historical record). Playing
> against that is a diversity of opinion which seems to derive (at least in
> part) from an orthogonal axis of different sensibilities about Scripture,
> and not the disciplinary data. Adding to that is another diversity of
> opinion as to how much this Adam business even matters in considering the
> heart of Christianity. So, I would expect the state of federated opinion to
> continue, with the extended discussion happily benefitting at least those
> not yet enlisted in one camp or another.
>
> Do you see any active force that is likely to move the discussion toward
> consensus? The only one I see that might be in play is one of default,
> generational change accompanying the pragmatism of that interesting 16-29
> age group as characterized in the book "unchristian" by Kinnaman and Lyons.
>
> Finally, "must" is much more provocative than "suggest", a good thing I
> think, so that language seems quite OK to me, especially since it is clear
> that in this context no one has power to command anything. Even science per
> se doesn't really demand anything here, other than continuing to add bits to
> an already fairly pronounced pile of data and insight, the only thing in
> apparent motion. The tipping point will likely arrive on "little cats feet",
> unobserved and unbidden by this sort of half-hearted jousting.
>
> It must be getting late. I'm beginning to sound tacky and unconstructive.
> Good evening, all. JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> 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
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click to generate a targeted mailing list to grow your business.
>

-- 
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.