RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Schwarzwald said:
"But where did WLC oppose 'the evolution from apelike creature to man', even in the article presented?"

If William Lane Craig accepted the evidence from DNA for the biological evolution of apelike creature to human, then why would he be "undecided" on the issue of whether evolution happened?

In my experience, the biggest roadblock to accepting evolution is accepting the biological origins of humans from lower animals, rather than creation by fiat. In my experience, once this step of evolution is accepted, the whole ball of wax can be swallowed. Accepting the evolution of human from ape-like animal is a watershed event. Evidently, he hasn't accepted it yet. Once he does, it will affect all of his theology and interpretation for Genesis, and how to interpret the New Testament which refers to Genesis. Maybe that consequence is too much for him to deal with... resulting in loss of job and ministry. By being non-committal he can stick to "traditional theology" and play it safe with he current Christian masses.

Maybe calling him a coward (when it comes to accepting/promoting evolution) is the wrong thing- maybe the right word is a diplomat or politician... reminds me of this quote:

Quotations from
Spiritual Leadership
by J. Oswald Sanders
 "Every preacher ought to be primarily a prophet of God who preaches as God bids him, without regard to results. When he becomes conscious of the fact that he is a leader in his own church or denomination, he has reached a crisis in his ministry. He must now choose one of two courses, that of prophet of God or a leader of men. If he seeks to be a prophet and a leader, he is apt to make a failure of both. If he decides to be a prophet only insofar as he can do without losing his leadership, he becomes a diplomat and ceases to be a prophet at all. If he decides to maintain leadership at all costs, he may easily fall to the level of a politician who pulls the wires in order to gain or hold a position." (H. C. A. Dixon, A. C. Dixon [New York: Putnam's, 1931], p. 277)

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:05 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Heya Bernie,

It is fine to be moderate as long as the evidence isn't in... but when the evidence is in, it is a matter of being wrong when trying to be moderate. When the evidence comes in, it is time for taking sides. The only reason to stay moderate in the face of the evidence is because of fear- fear of being rejected by some (or much of the faithful). The evidence for evolution from apelike creature to man is overwhelming, in my opinion (pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2). This is no time to be moderate, in my opinion, when one wants to be on the leading edge of apologetics- esp. to a skeptical and atheist audience.
But where did WLC oppose 'the evolution from apelike creature to man', even in the article presented? The only place where he specifically referenced human origins is here: "The transition from lower primates to humans is nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand scale." In other words, the bulk of the skepticism he displays here has nothing to do with the specific issue of apelike-to-human transition.

What's more, WLC could accept the apelike-to-human transition personally - and still have serious doubts about evolution, at least in the orthodox sense. Denton is a great example of this that Timaeus has been talking about. Behe as well accepts common descent and biological precursors of that kind, and clearly Behe has (however misguided some may judge him on this point) considerable problems with what he views as the standard evolutionary scenario.

Further, let's get this out in the open. I do believe it's important, very important, for skeptics, agnostics, and atheists to be reached out to by Christians. I personally am a TE, though I keep the door open to ID possibilities outside the realm of science, and find the larger ID movement to be pretty encouraging in many respects. But if the desire is to make Christianity respectable in the eyes of atheists and skeptics, guess what? It's not going to happen. And not because Christianity or even some skepticism about origins is necessarily irrational, but because the respectability of Christianity is not now and has never been the central concern.

Yes- William Lane Craig addresses biological evolution, but it seems like it only when asked. Other than that, he tries to avoid or circumvent the discussion. I find that reprehensible for a person who wants to be on the cutting edge of apologetics. And he certainly claims to be in harmony with modern science, so there's no way for anyone to accept scientific ignorance on his part because he's "only a philosopher"- he doesn't claim to be "only a philosopher."
Bernie, look at what you've said here. First WLC was a coward because you claim he never touches on the question of evolution. Now you're implying he's a coward because he does touch on the question - but only when asked. Sorry, this doesn't fly. Not when he's just finished up a podcast where he discusses evolution - he didn't get blindsided at a conference and end up discussing it because he was put on the spot. Not when he just posted an article on his own site where he talks about the issue in broad detail, and he's entirely free to field whatever questions he likes. Not when he defends Christianity's compatibility with evolutionary theory, and not when the principal author he quotes with regards to skepticism about orthodox evolutionary theory is, of all people, Michael Denton.

You may as well argue that Francis Collins is a coward and scientifically ignorant, on the grounds that he's not nearly active enough on this question and due to his expressing skepticism about evolutionary explanations for altruism.

Anyway, if a philosopher is scientifically ignorant, their philosophy will be in error. Philosophy is human logic/reason based on facts, so awareness of all scientific facts is a foundation for philosophy.

This is a tremendous oversimplification of philosophy, and flat out wrong in many instances.

Anyway, I think the reaction some are having to WLC is ludicrous. Has it really come to the point where entertaining and encouraging some limited skepticism about orthodox evolutionary claims - even while asserting that orthodox evolutionary theory poses no threat to Christianity - is reprehensible and cowardly? Sorry - I think this attitude is vastly more harmful to Christian ministry and relations in general. I believe the primary concern of TEs should be in explaining to people why TE is an acceptable position for a Christian to hold, why TE does not rule out design, and generally making information on evolution available. Not being overly upset because somewhere out there may be Christians (some or many) who hold opinions contrary to scientific orthodoxy.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 12:14:08 2008