[asa] More WLC on Evolution, ID, and Genesis

Given the conversation stirred up by his last post, I thought ASA list
members would be interested to know William Lane Craig has a followup at
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

Some particularly interesting parts.

"But suppose you're right, and science requires methodological naturalism.
What follows? Merely that the design hypothesis is not a scientific
hypothesis, given your definition of science. As a philosopher, that
conclusion bothers me not a whit. In fact, I remain quite open-minded about
the claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis. Richard
Dawkins thinks it is (one of the many claims on which he agrees with
Intelligent Design theorists), but I'm not so sure. I'm quite content to
regard it as a metaphysical claim, a claim that may well be true, even if it
does not fit within the methodological limits of science."

So, here's WLC flatly stating his uncertainty about ID, particularly ID with
regards to being scientific. But I think what's very interesting is his take
on evolution and Genesis.

"As for Genesis, I'm again uncertain whether there's any science there or
not. Certainly its theological purpose is not primarily scientific. But
Wolfhart Pannenberg claims, appealing to Old Testament scholar Gerhard von
Rad, that the narrative is intended to be a scientific account of the
world's origin. You're quite mistaken to think it purely mythological.
Indeed, the account is positively de-mythologizing in its tone. It strips
away any of the dragons and primordial gods of the creation myths of
Israel's pagan neighbors. The sun and the moon are not astral deities;
they're just lights in the sky which God has made. The animals and
vegetation that populate the Earth are just creatures made by God. The whole
chapter has a de-mythologizing intent with regard to the created world."

Personally, what WLC has pointed out here is something that has always
struck me about Genesis - particularly the 'de-mythologizing' aspect. It's
tremendously down to earth and non-'fantastic' in a sense, and that serves
to make it stand out.

"Once you divest yourself of the idea that the account means to narrate six
consecutive, 24 hour days—and there are good reasons in the text for
thinking that its author did not so intend it—, then it's striking that the
narrative says absolutely nothing about *how* God made the plants and
animals. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not claiming that Genesis 1 teaches
evolution—that would be anachronistic—but merely that there is no
inconsistency between Genesis 1 and an evolutionary theory. Augustine
understood this point already 1500 years before Darwin."

Looks like WLC isn't shy about arguing compatibility between evolution and
Genesis. I thought this was clear previously as well, but it's nice to see
it stated clearly.

Still, the most concise and striking portion (in my view) comes right here:

"The Bible doesn't intend to be a science textbook, so it would be silly to
look to it for scientific discoveries. But modern science was birthed by a
biblical worldview which saw the world neither as divine nor as inhabited by
spirits but as a rational place created by God and therefore amenable to
scientific exploration. And a theistic view of the world can most certainly
contribute to our understanding of scientific truth."

I think the power of this observation is tremendous, and it's the sort of
thing I'd like to see built up in the future.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 25 01:37:01 2008