RE: [asa] Saving Darwin: M-Genesis

My only hope is for a plausible interpretation using context that was never
available to us, especially that which comes from modern astronomy.

M-Genesis allows time to be a mere tool for evolutionary development and
certainly in accord with BBT and planetary theories. One key premise is
God's ability to look down on time and take man, probably Moses, back in
time to the important highlights of God's creative processes; snapshots of
His divine design. Of course, a vision would be a viable alternative to an
actual transport.

Consider John's experience in Revelation. He was told to write what he
saw. Was this a vision or a transport in time for him by the hand of God?
Either way is inconsequential since it produces the same result. I find it
interesting that the last book of the Bible may helps us with interpreting
the first.

What I would really enjoy is to have the opportunity to get the folks here
to kick M-Genesis around. I am not stuck on any one interpretation, but I
believe it is time to throw this interpretation on the table so it can
benefit from scholarly scrutiny. This will require some effort for many, if
not most, to constrain their natural bias against it and offer constructive
criticism on its specific claims.

"Coope"

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:40 PM
To: georgecooper@sbcglobal.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: M-Genesis

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
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3nM5CCt1vbPEn2TWHGR6H8afc
JyKn9cCdFTcVDPs1sPBVUdn/>  business.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.