RE: [asa] Two questions...

I don't think it's the science issues that are the most troublesome, at
least for me. It's the lack of foundational doctrines that are, I think,
critical to many mainstream Christian churches. That would be concordism,
and inerrancy/infallibility of the Word of God.

One can only integrate science and religion if they agree with one another.
If you say they don't agree, that will cause problems in the church...most
of them. If you say the Word of God is wrong, then you will definitely have
problems. That basic starting point is where TE went wrong. From reading
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation it is obvious that this is not a new
issue - the historical account early on in the book is well written and
seems clear. The backlash from that early position of non-concordism appears
to be what caused the YEC movement to take such a strong stance...a balance
on the other side of the equation. At least that's how I read it.

God's Word should (does IMO) agree with God's world. And if it doesn't, then
man is either interpreting the Word wrong, or measuring the world wrong.

Genesis 1 and 2 are easily reconciled - it's obvious to a child reading it
that one is a specific timeline, and the other is not the same sequence. Do
you think the ancient Jews didn't notice that? Gen 2 is thus fairly
obviously a story that is told from a viewpoint of what's important to the
Jews telling it, not necessarily in sequence. This is not inconsistent with
the two accounts being from different tribes - but does a better job of
reconciling it. It may have been so obvious that the Jews didn't even
describe the rationale for the difference in the Talmud (I don't know, just
guessing it's not mentioned).

The closest thing I have seen to a reconciliation of the OEC and TE
positions is Bob Russell's chapter...God working through Objective Special
Providence. That is truly intriguing to me and very worthy of further
examination. However, that's only if it can be couched in the doctrines of
concordism and inerrancy (and it doesn't seem to have problems in that
arena, but I haven't read his other works).

      Concordism Inerrancy Truth in Science
----------------------------------------------------
 TE - NO NO YES
OEC - YES YES YES
YEC - YES YES NO
----------------------------------------------------

Now, you may not agree with that "Truth in Science" part for OEC (as the
"Liars for Jesus" label indicates), but the Truth is out there. Is RTB
always right? NO. Humans all. But they will listen, learn, relate, change,
modify models, and do so humbly...if there is accurate data to show that
some component of the model is wrong. I don't see the YEC camp ever doing
that. I don't see the TE camp ever doing that with regard to concordism or
inerrancy. What I do see is OEC as a balanced position that melds science
and faith quite well.

There's just a few bumps left in the road, is all. Nothing much.
:)

James P

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:35 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.
Received on Fri Feb 6 23:24:31 2009