David Opderbeck made the following query:
> > Has anyone read F. LeRon Schults' "Christology and Science?"
> I'm trying to understand what he's getting at in the chapter on
> "Incarnation and Evolutionary Biology." Is he suggesting evolution
> renders a literal virgin birth impossible? If so, why?
I forwarded the question to our friend Carol who has read the book,
and asked for her thoughts. I post her response below.
> OK, here's my take on it. You could call this the "Amplified"
> version of Shults, in the spirit of the Amplified Bible. That is,
> you won't be able to tell where Carol ends and Shults begins unless
> you have Shults right in front of you.
>
> 1. People used to know that the virgin birth was a miracle because:
> virgin births do not happen.
>
> 2. Once we had science, people began to wonder if they could
> explain (god of the gaps time) the virgin birth not as a miracle
> but rather by finding obscure instances of such in nature. Now that
> we have genetics, we know that virgin births do not happen because:
> a man must have a Y chromosome (just a more detailed version of
> "virgin births do not happen").
>
> Either way, "literalness" is not the focus of Shults' discussion,
> as that part of the discussion could easily take place just as well
> under option 1 above before there was even any concept of
> evolution. His focus is *incarnation* and what that means, which is
> a separate issue from virgin birth, at least at the academic level.
> For the man-in-the-pew, the issues of incarnation and virgin birth
> are conflated simply because his buddies at work make fun of him
> for believing such a thing anyway, and he needs this addressed
> pastorally, not academically.
>
> You can post this to the list if you want. I don't want to pose as
> any kind of expert. I just thought this was one of the best books
> I've ever read.
>
> Carol %^)
I can forward any other follow-up responses to her if desired>
Keith
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 4 17:54:47 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 04 2009 - 17:54:47 EST