So, Dennis, then you are a polygenist. You reject monogenesis. Is that right?
Why? Because it says so in Biology or Palaeontology? Right?
Btw, I've studied ratcheting an awful lot in economics too.
Gregory
~
Ratcheting concordists are easy to spot – they have theological investments in specific scientific interpretations of Genesis. For example, I met a few ASAers at Baylor who accepted CD, but were struggling to work the population genetics data into their scheme. They were evolutionary monogenists – they accept CD, but feel that God founded the whole human race through a literal pair. Why? “Because it says so in Genesis.”
Hopefully that explains my thinking. Just remember IANAT (I am not a theologian). :)
Dennis
On 01/12/09 9:43 AM, "mrb22667@kansas.net" <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
Okay --"ratcheting concordism" -- my interest is piqued. Any chance of a quick
>synopsis? Even on our cable modem here at school it took me a few minutes to
>get the downloaded slides. And those only show the tantalizing points being
>discussed, not the discussion itself. The actual video/audio is going to take
>longer to download than I have right now. But I'd still love a sentence or two
>explanation if available.
>
>--Merv
>
>
>Quoting Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> thanks for sending this direct - I do tend to be pretty hit-and-miss here.
>>
>> The term is one I coined - to describe what I see as a phenomenon in
>> scientific concordist approaches to Scripture.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> On 01/12/09 5:40 AM, "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was interested in Dennis Venema's term "Ratcheting Concordism" at the ASA
>> meeting. (see presentation slides here
>> <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Venema.pdf> &
>> audio here <http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2009Venema.mp3> ... his brief
>> mention of ratcheting concordism occurs around 36:00 min time).
>>
>> Dennis describes ratcheting concordism as a scriptural concordist strategy
>> that, when in the face of overwhelming evidence, will ratchet over one
>> position and lock in there (until the next batch of evidence comes along).
>>
>> Now, I know Dennis isn't a theologian but I'm intrigued by that term ... & I
>> think it is helpful (not like I'm showing my cards here :-) ). I'm wondering
>> a) if this is a new term and b) if others think this is helpful. I would
>> especially be interested in hearing comments from those who believe that some
>> historical and/or scientific concordism is important &/or essential for
>> interpreting Gen 1-11 if we are to hold a high view of scripture.
>>
>> cc'ing Dennis too ... not sure if you are as hit-and-miss on this list as I
>> am.
>>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 1 15:35:38 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 15:35:38 EST