Re: [asa] Historical trends in acceptance of evolution by orthodox Christians WAS Re: [asa] Denomenational Change

I will give a view from over the pond.

In the late 19th century increasing numbers of Christians accepted evolution
but often with interventions at life consciousness and humans. Some remained
OEC hardly any were YEC , If like ted I define orthodox by deity of Christ
and bodily resurrection then the numbers of orthodox TE is immense and it is
quicker to list those who were not TE or orthodox
This continued to be the case right up to the 1970s when American imports
began to make a mark.

Within the Church of England I have not found one YEC from 1855 until 1970
and that represents decades of looking. Even OEC was rare from 1880 to 1970.
Up to then all Anglican Evangelicals to my knowledge were TE, and possibly a
few OEC.

The picture is changing now with increasing numbers of clergy being YEC and
I suspect at least one bishop is leaning to YEC

The dominant view of independent evangelicals up to 1970 was the Gap Theory
and no evolution, but they are now largely YEC

I know of an Anglican church trying to get a new Anglican school going with
a YEC bias, so watch this space

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Schwarzwald" <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: [asa] Historical trends in acceptance of evolution by orthodox
Christians WAS Re: [asa] Denomenational Change

I respond to Steve's conjectures below, at the appropriate points.

Ted

>>> Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> 10/25/2009 7:47 AM >>>
Hi Ted,

You stated of Pupin that:

> He was also the only scientist of his stature from that period that I
have
> yet found who was genuinely orthodox theologically and also an
evolutionist.
>

So, using a Venn diagram, the intersection between the set of
“theologically
orthodox scientists” and the set of “eminent scientists” was
virtually null
during this point in history – maybe because the set of theologically
orthodox scientists itself had been reduced to near zero.

TED: Yes, I think that may have been true. Without conducting a wholesale
review of the beliefs of all "eminent scientists" from the period (something
that in principle could be done, but in practice would take perhaps a few
decades since you have to do quite a bit of digging and careful reading
before pigeon-holing any individual scientist), I would say that the
theologically orthodox scientists from the Scopes era were almost all not
regarded as "eminent." I also add that what I consider "orthodox" isn't
going to match, in all cases, what other scholars might consider "orthodox."
 In my case, you have to be able to affirm the deity of Jesus and the bodily
resurrection, as a starting point. I don't limit it to that, but that
filter does eliminate a very large percentage of "eminent" scientists who
would have called themselves Christians at the time. (Not so, today)

I’d be interested in comparing the sets of “theologically orthodox
scientists” & “scientists that accept biological evolution”. My take
on the
historical trends for this would be that:
● During the latter third of the 19th century / first decade or so of
the
20th century, there was a “small but healthy” intersection between
these two
groups (TED: YES. For a bit of commentary on this, see the first part of
my essay on Compton in PSCF June issue.)
● Then came the Fundamentalist dark ages – about 30 years or so –
when
the intersection remained virtually null. (TED: YES. Part of the reason
for this "dark age," however, was the existence of "modernism," to which
"fundamentalism" was a specific response. The modernists generally, with a
few exceptions, cast divine transcendence onto the trash heap of history.)
● This was followed by several decades of tentative rapprochement
between
scientific and theological orthodoxy and thus a slight overlap (the ASA
can
probably take some credit here!) (TED: YES. And, the ASA does have a
positive role here. So does big bang cosmology, probably, for bringing back
a powerful sense of the miracle of creation.)
● This rapprochement has accelerated rapidly over the last couple of
decades such that a majority – maybe significant majority - of the first
set
(theologically orthodox scientists) are now contained within the second
set
(scientists that accept biological evolution) (TED: YES. At least I
suspect this is so. Without a wide survey of AAAS members, specific to
points of Christian theism, we won't know. Many of these folks just go
quiety about their business. Most of them aren't "eminent" of course,
though some of them are, including a few dozen ASA members.)

***

Ted

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 Mon Oct 26 12:14:11 2009