The church dealing with evolution (was Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins)

It is not true that the church as a whole is avoiding issues of origins, evolution, &c. This is shown by 2 upcoming events connected with Darwin's 200th birthday& the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species. On October 1-2 the Presbyterian Association on Science, Technology and the Christian Faith (PCUSA) and other Reformed groups are sponsoring a conference on "Evolution, God and Becoming Human" at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond. This will also connect with Calvin's 500th birthday. (Keith Miller will be 1 of the presenters & I'm leading a workshop.) On 31 October there will be a one day conference at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, sponsored by the ELCA's Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology, on "God Working through Evolution: 150 Years after Darwin's Origin." (Karl Evans & I are on the steering committee for the Alliance.)

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dehler, Bernie
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:04 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Olasky on Collins

  "The theists truly haven't adequately addressed the question. "

  I think churches avoid it (origins issues, evolution, etc.) like the plague because it is too controversial and hurts unity. Unity is very important, esp. if you want to have a large church. Atheists can argue all they want with each other, because they don't have much organization. nothing comparable to a Christian megachurch, I think.

  .Bernie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:53 AM
  To: Dehler, Bernie
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

  Bernie,

  You are right. The problem is that theistic teleology comes in more than one flavor - it may come in a dozen potential flavors.
  ID is one type, Collins' worldview is another. But they all share the same substrate. So rejecting one flavor of theistic teleology in favor of another flavor may make sense to proponents of theistic teleology, but to an outsider it seems like all the same mistake.
  But don't blame the outsider. The theists truly haven't adequately addressed the question.

  I think ID, in some of its definitions, doesn't have to be theistic. It still might be wrong.

  Dave Clounch

  On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

  "Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing ID. That seems contradictory to him."

  That seems typical of the people at my evangelical church too. It is as if evolution=atheism and ID=Christianity.

  .Bernie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
  Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:07 PM
  To: asa@calvin.edu

  Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

  I'm not sure either direction is right. Olasky states his views of what ID is and he's rather far off the mark. Why wouldn't there be a problem if he simply thinks Collins is inconsistent by opposing a view which is the same as his own? I think I spelled out the kind of ID coverage that Collins would support. Olasky seems baffled by Collins being an evangelical and opposing ID. That seems contradictory to him. That's why he would like some clarification.

  Randy

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Schwarzwald

    To: asa@calvin.edu

    Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:01 PM

    Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

    Instead of getting hung up on trying to define ID for the purposes of a response here, why not respond by asking Olasky to explain what he views ID as comprising and why? If he wants to argue that what Collins believes about evolution actually qualifies as ID, I fail to see the problem. Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction? Or is the idea that Collins should be viewed as utterly distinct from ID, no matter what ID actually covers?

    On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> 3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
> No, not the ID that is so prominently discussed in the media. Yes, as
> Christians we all believe that our Creator is an intelligent designer and we
> all believe that the awesome world around us simply shouts out the existence
> of this intelligent designer. But that's not what ID is. ID is the belief
> that a) evolution is not an adequate explanation of the origin of species,
> and b) that there is a specific logical argument
> based on the information-like, specified complexity-type character of DNA
> for which the best
> explanation is an indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the argument
> with which Collins disagrees.
>

    Exactly what ID is is rather problematic. Regrettably, the given
    definitions seem to have more to do with the perceived audience appeal
    than to consistent delineation. As the Dover trial pointed out, the
    phrase is used as a substitute for creation science. It includes a
    wide range of levels of acceptance of evolution, from total denial to
    fairly full acceptance.

    What its claimed theological/philosophical base would be is also
    problematic. In particular, it is marketed as both a Christian
    apologetic and as a religiously neutral scientific endeavor.

    The strength of claims made also varies. Does ID assert that evidence
    of "design" is a well-supported scientific theory, or does it just
    have some curious observations in search of a theory, or is it merely
    a possibility that's worth investigating (or at least ought not be
    dismissed out of hand)?

    I am inclined to define ID as the search for evidence about
    supernatural agency in the physical world. As such, the definition
    covers Dawkins as well as Johnson-both are trying to support their
    theology by invoking science.

    --
    Dr. David Campbell
    425 Scientific Collections
    University of Alabama
    "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

    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 Wed Jul 29 13:47:03 2009