Re: [asa] Two questions...

Heya John,

Some replies below.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Agreed. That is the other major obsctacle to popular acceptance of TE in
> mainstream evangelical Christianity, the lack of a thought-out TE theology
> that is not anathema to the existing church.

Well, when I say practically unitarian in outlook, I'm talking across the
board - social and political issues, as well as some doctrinal issues. Oddly
I think the former show up more than the latter.

Right off the bat, TE forces you to pretty much jettison inerrancy, special
> creation of man, a literal Adam being the progenitor of all humanity and
> original sin to name a few. My friend who is an evangelical seminary
> professor told me in a discussion about this that I have already denied 95%
> of orthodox Christianity just by denying these doctines. Ironically I am in
> a discussion with him now on exactly these issues on another list.

I'd disagree here. I don't think TE forces someone to jettison inerrancy,
especially since there are multiple understandings of 'inerrant' to begin
with. A literal Adam doesn't need to go by the wayside either, though
certainly the understanding of Adam would change - Adam would still be
'literal' even if Adam/Eve were not the sole, original first couple of
humanity. Original sin, tied as it is to a primeval event and being the one
doctrine common sense supports (is man fallen? Look around), doesn't need to
go anywhere either.

> Although I agree there are reasonable answers to these thorny issues, they
> take some time to absorb and are a radical paradigm shift even for those of
> us that are aggressive truth seekers. This needs to be packaged delicately
> for spoon feeding the masses like my friend while at the same time very
> gently cushioning the blow. This is exactly the niche RTB filled so
> effectively in giving people a way out of YEC.

And this is exactly the attitude that worries me most about what shape a TE
ministry would take: Instead of offering up the TE view on Genesis,
explaining it and defending it, approaching it in a way where 'spoon-feeding
the masses' and 'cushioning the blow' is the big concern. As if people need
to be coddled and tricked rather than treated like adults. Is the goal here
to defend a view of Genesis that TEs think is true, or to just get more
people to say they accept TE?

Worse, I don't think TE requires jettisoning nearly as much as you suggest.
If someone were to say they believe in evolution, even animal precursors to
man, but also that there was a special intervention where the introduction
of humanity was concerned - a transition from precursor to human that was
intended and directed - would the belief in that intervention (whether in
the form of a direct action of God, or a natural event that was sudden but
intended to occur in a front-loaded way) mean that person should no longer
be called a TE?

I am not sure we need to lay off the YEC bashing because first of all they
> need it and deserve it and secondly it is a great lead in to finding
> intellectual Christians who are disgruntled with the current synthesis of
> science and faith in the evangelical church and it is a good way of
> differentiating ourselves. We could use all the same marketing material of
> RTB like "no conflict", "2 books", "follow the evidence where it leads" etc,
> but really mean it. It would be like an RTB++.

Isn't RTB regularly panned on ASA as being at times dishonest and more
concerned with persuading people than actually speaking the truth?

I'm not saying the YEC picture shouldn't be criticized. But there's a
difference between criticism/disagreement and bashing, or smugly rolling
eyes at them, which sadly is what I very often see coming out of the TE
camp.

I hope and pray that something like this can come to pass one day. Maybe
> some of you more enlightened ID supporters like yourself or Mike Gene can
> throw your hat in the ring to start something like this. I think that all
> that is necessary to redeem ID and bridge the gap with TE is to not insist
> that the conclusion of design is special creation and to not insist that it
> is scientifically detectable to the point where it gets hijacked by those
> that would shove it down the throats of the public in the courts.

I don't think that ID is scientifically detectable, and I'm quite happy with
a TE leaning and a view that design is evident in nature through reason. The
problem is that if someone believes there was a special creation event in
our history, I don't feel the need to automatically recoil or denounce them.
I don't even feel the need, necessarily, to view them as not TEs (though
that typically depends on the event in question.) And even if I disagree
with them, I don't feel the need to attack YECs - it's enough for me to
simply disagree with them, or attack their rhetoric if it gets out of line.

Oddly, I think the strength of ID has been to be very open-minded about
design questions, and to avoid denouncing people's views on design in
nature. Even Ken Miller's views have been called, in essence, an ID
proposal/perspective. So my response would be, oddly enough, that TEs may
need to accept that someone could reasonably believe in kinds of 'special
creation events' in history while still accepting evolution. Or that
arguments about design being evident in nature or natural history, while not
scientific, may still be persuasive and legitimate. Certainly in a situation
where it seems that arguing science shows design is real is denounced
(rightly, in my view) because science cannot touch on questions of design,
but when others argue that science shows design is unreal, the response is
often silence or agreement (IOW, 'science cannot touch on questions of
design' goes out the window, so long as the right conclusion is reached.)

>
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Fri, 2/6/09, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 8:56 PM
> > I think a TE ministry would and could find success A) if it
> > did not largely
> > base itself on attacking YECs, but simply arguing the case
> > for a TE view of
> > genesis, and B) if it did not obviously dump large portions
> > of biblical
> > christianity as well, to the point that it seemed
> > practically unitarian in
> > outlook. The second part in particular seems to be a
> > problem, since it often
> > seems that one big roadblock to even considering TE is the
> > view that
> > evolution necessitates other views more orthodox christians
> > sharply disagree
> > with, such as a justification of eugenics-friendly views
> > and policies.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:38 PM, John Walley
> > <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Also I thought of Fred Hereen who wrote "Show Me
> > God" after I sent this. He
> > > has a small radio and print ministry aimed at the
> > popular audience that is
> > > solidly TE. He is a good guy and may be a better
> > example of what we have in
> > > the way of nascent TE popular ministries but I agree I
> > would like to see
> > > more. In fact I would like to see a church atmosphere
> > where those guys could
> > > survive and even thrive. Well we can hope anyway.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 2/6/09, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions...
> > > > To: "asa@calvin.edu"
> > <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > > Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 7:47 PM
> > > > John Walley said " I think the best we have
> > is the
> > > > Thank God for Evolution guy but in my neck of the
> > woods
> > > > people think he is misguided at best, a quack in
> > general and
> > > > one of those evil-lutionist servants of Satan on
> > the other
> > > > extreme."
> > > >
> > > > That guy is not a Christian- he doesn't even
> > believe in
> > > > an afterlife. I asked him in a group
> > presentation once in
> > > > Portland. He masquerades as a Christian to get
> > into the
> > > > Christian marketplace, I think.
> > > >
> > > > ...Bernie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > > > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> > John Walley
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:35 PM
> > > > To: Keith Miller; Dave Wallace
> > > > Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
> > > > Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Herein lies the reason for the lack of a
> > prominent TE
> > > > oriented ministry, there is no support or market
> > for it in
> > > > the church. Face it, becoming a TE will get you
> > kicked out
> > > > of most evangelical churches. My friend was
> > afraid to tell
> > > > his own wife for months and when he did he said
> > he felt it
> > > > would have been easier to tell her he was gay.
> > > >
> > > > I used to long for a TE ministry to belong to as
> > well until
> > > > I realized just how divisive and polarizing this
> > was. I
> > > > would love to see RTB or Ravi Z or William Lane
> > Craig or
> > > > Chuck Colson come out and stress honest science
> > as an
> > > > effective evangelical tool (what a concept) but
> > it would
> > > > likely mean ministry suicide for them overnight.
> > Not that
> > > > that is a bad thing but just something that is
> > not likely to
> > > > happen.
> > > >
> > > > I think the best we have is the Thank God for
> > Evolution guy
> > > > but in my neck of the woods people think he is
> > misguided at
> > > > best, a quack in general and one of those
> > evil-lutionist
> > > > servants of Satan on the other extreme. I think
> > this is
> > > > something that people just have to come to on
> > their own and
> > > > the word leaks out gradually. And maybe it is
> > best if it is
> > > > not popularized or marketed. The church
> > definitely has a
> > > > major theological reset coming to it though. I
> > think it will
> > > > be equivalent to that of the Copernican
> > Revolution if not
> > > > more impactful and I don't think that is an
> > > > exaggeration.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 2/6/09, Dave Wallace
> > > > <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Dave Wallace
> > <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
> > > > > To: "Keith Miller"
> > <kbmill@ksu.edu>
> > > > > Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > > > Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > > > Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 6:57 PM
> > > > > Keith Miller wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think that there
> > necessarily has to
> > > > be an
> > > > > organization built around every valued and
> > important
> > > > > ministry. I very much see myself in the
> > role that you
> > > > > describe above. That is the motivation for
> > much of
> > > > what I
> > > > > do. There are many efforts by a diverse
> > range of
> > > > > individuals and organizations for which this
> > is an
> > > > important
> > > > > goal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Keith
> > > > > I for one very much appreciate the book that
> > Keith
> > > > > contributed to and edited as well as all the
> > other
> > > > people on
> > > > > the list who also wrote chapters!
> > > > > I would be very surprised if either Keith,
> > George or
> > > > Dick
> > > > > make much if any money from their books. It
> > would be
> > > > nice
> > > > > if there were an endowment to at least pay
> > for a good
> > > > part
> > > > > of the authors time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks all
> > > > > Dave Wallace
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu
> > > > with
> > > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as
> > the body of
> > > > the
> > > > > message.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the
> > body of the
> > > > message.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the
> > body of the
> > > > message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> > with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
> > the message.
> > >
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 6 22:31:00 2009