Re: [asa] Saving Darwin -- On the "Fall"

I'm not sure why you throw in open and process theology. Since there is,
in the section you quote, no reference to the extent of God's knowledge,
it would seem that the view is equally compatible with classic and open
theology. Since it does not suggest that God is tied into the material
universe, I doubt that KG goes along with process theology. On the other
hand, there is no flat denial of the possibility.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:06:34 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
I got my copy of Karl Giberson's "Saving Darwin" today and read through
the Introduction, in which Karl briefly discusses the problem of the
"Fall." The book, BTW, is a delightful read, and its discussion of the
contours of the problem are very valuable, even if one doesn't agree with
every conclusion.

As we've discussed a bit already, Karl finds unconvincing and contrived
any effort to "save" the fall through some kind of federal representative
view of "Adam". Here is what I think is the key passage of his positive
statement of the fall, on page 13:

If nature, in all its many processes, is 'free' to explore pathways of
possibility, then the evolutionary process would predictably lead to
creatures with pathological levels of selfishness. Creatures inattentive
to their own needs would not have made it. By these lights, God did not
'build' sin into the natural order. Rather, God endowed the natural order
with the freedom to 'become,' and the result was an interesting, morally
complex, spiritually rich, but ultimately selfish species we call Homo
sapiens. This is an entirely reasonable theologcal speculation, at least
by my amateur standards. It brings the Christian doctrine of the fall
into the larger picture of an extended creation. Humankind did not
appear all at once, and neither did sin.

Queries:

1. Is this notion of the fall theologically adequate?

2. Is this notion of the fall open theism or process thought?

3. Does accepting biological evolution require the acceptance of open
theism or process thought?

A couple of tangential questions as well -- Karl if you're able I'd love
to hear about these:

1. In the Introduction, Karl describes how his undergraduate Bible /
religion professors at a Christian college began to dissuade him about
taking the Genesis accounts literally / historically. It appears from
this description that only the fringe of fundamentalism still took those
accounts literally. My experience has been different -- I've reached out
to many Bible scholars and theologians from evangelical institutions that
I would not consider fundamentalist, and none have been willing to commit
to a non-historical Adam -- with the possible exception of Kent Sparks in
his book "God's Word in Human Words," and there only indirectly. As I
mentioned, even at my more "progressive" alma mater, Gordon College, it
seems that none of the theology / Bible faculty are of this view. Are
there people who are just afraid to "come out of the closet," so to
speak? Or is it just that "evangelical" must equal "fundamentalist?"

2. Karl also mentions some theologians who are accepting of evolution,
including Alister McGrath, and he cites to McGrath's "Scientific
Theology" trilogy. Does McGrath take on evolution head-on in that
series, and in particular, does he address Adam and the fall? I know
McGrath accepts evolution, but I've never been able to find any published
reference of his either on exactly how this relates to this central point
of tension.

Also, I'm not so sure that McGrath's version of "critical realism" would
be as accepting of the pragmatism of daily scientific practice as Karl is
in Chapter 6. And I can testify for certain that the characterization of
legal education versus practicing scientific education on page 158 is
just wrong. All of the law professors I know -- and I'm one -- would
scoff at the idea that "science is different from, say, law, where rules
dominate and the prevailing philosophy is that following the rules leads
to the truth." (Page 158). Actually, the prevailing philosophy of law
is scientific pragmatism / realism, in which nobody really "knows" the
law except through lived, experienced adjudicated disputes (or messy
legislative or rule-making processes). But more on that another day.

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology 
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mPb9YgIuJBV7CRdwk73ZDiiH66BKhYYF7ZrML6nHGwmP8wN/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.