Re: [asa] The Doors of the Sea (overcoming resistance to evolution)

I agree with Bernie -- my experience is (and continues to be) the same.
Particularly for those of us with evangelical / reformed roots, ditching a
historic Adam feels like spiritual suicide.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> "IMO, the major stumbling block for Christians accepting evolution is the
> argument from evil."
>
>
>
> Not in my case. For me, the biggest stumbling block to evolution was Adam,
> as the Bible clearly says he was a person and I think evolution puts him
> into a non-historical category of beings. I think Adam is the reason for
> YEC and OEC insisting on a special creation for mankind. For me, the issue
> of evil is a second or third order of concern- Adam was of prime importance.
>
>
>
> I've seen/heard Dawkins in debate. They don't really debate Adam, but the
> Christians he debates are also usually evolution friendly (Lennox and
> McGrath, for example), so they get into the secondary issues like the
> problem of evil. But if you put Dawkins against Ken Ham, I think you would
> see the focus change to Adam (I know, Dawkins wouldn't bother with Ham). I
> think most evangelicals are still YEC and OEC friendly (75% according to
> Lamoureux's ASA presentation), so this first-order issue is more important
> when overcoming evolution concerns I think.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Nucacids
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:59 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* [asa] The Doors of the Sea
>
>
>
> I just finished a book that came highly recommended from a cyber-friend and
> it did not disappoint. It was David Hart's "The Doors of the Sea." Hart is
> an Eastern Orthodox theologian and he tackles the argument from evil
> head-on. He makes a subtle, yet very significant argument.
>
>
>
> "At the moment it is enough simply to make this point clear: God's gracious
> will for his creatures – his willing of all things to his own infinite
> goodness – is the creative power that makes all things to be and the
> consummate happiness to which all things are called; but this does not
> (indeed, must not) mean that everything that happens is merely a direct
> expression of God's desire for his creatures or an essential stage within
> the dvine plan for history." – pp. 97-98.
>
>
>
> Hart argues that a Christ-centered, truly biblical understanding of
> providence does NOT entail the notion that "everything that occurs at the
> level of secondary causality - in nature or history – is governed not only
> by a transcendent providence but by a universal teleology that makes every
> instance of pain and loss an indispensable moment in a grand scheme whose
> ultimate synthesis will justify all things."
>
>
>
> I am still absorbing his argument, and if anyone has read this book, I'd be
> interested in hearing your thoughts.
>
>
>
> What I can say is that I notice a familiar theme that occurs in the
> disputes between theistic IDers and TEs. The TIDs seem to be under the
> impression that randomness in evolution undercuts God's providence (I don't
> agree). The TEs argue that ID somehow makes God morally culpable for
> parasites and cancer (don't agree there either).
>
>
>
> IMO, the major stumbling block for Christians accepting evolution is the
> argument from evil. Thus, it is quite interesting to me that Hart's
> response to the problem of evil can be applied to evolution.
>
>
>
> -Mike Gene
>

-- 
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.