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

David O:

On your 3rd question "Does accepting biological evolution require the
acceptance of open theism or process thought?", I agree with David S. and
David C. that the simple answer is no. Many traditional theists as well as
process theists and open theists would claim that evolutionary biology is
consistent or coherent with their own type of theism (as indeed, Dawkins et
al claim it is consistent with their own brand – a-theism).

Maybe a better question is: "With which type of theism is the acceptance of
biological evolution most consistent?" And actually, when it comes to
traditional theism or open theism (the only one's I believe are potentially
credible) both can find resonance with evolutionary biology. I highly
doubt evolutionary biology determines which is more coherent. (For some
context, read pages 16-18 of McGrath's Open Secret – ok, maybe it is not a
great context – just wanted you to know I'm doing my homework!).

thanks,
On 6/11/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.