A Bigger Tent
December 17, 2009
Related topics: Adam |
In his essay “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” (the fifth white paper from our November conference to be posted), Pastor Tim Keller considers three main questions laypeople raise when they learn of anyone teaching that biological evolution and biblical orthodoxy can be compatible:
Question #1: If God used evolution to create, then we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?
Question#2: If biological evolution is true, does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes, and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
Question #3: If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve how can we know where sin and suffering came from?
Keller offers potential answers to these questions in his paper. For example, he responds to question two by noting that accepting that human life came through evolutionary biological processes is not the same as accepting the Grand Theory of Evolution, which holds that evolution can explain every aspect of human nature.
However, Keller also notes that his answers to these questions should not be viewed as the only way to deal with the theological issues that evolution raises among congregations. Rather, it is the job of pastors to explore these questions in order to help their congregations. As he writes:
In short, if I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people. Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars. But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it?
Furthermore, Keller urges us to be open to a variety of answers to these questions. Christians seeking to correlate Scripture and science must be a “bigger tent” so as to include the multiple ways that one can reconcile scripture with evolutionary theory.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
December 25th 2009
PDS:
“You are misrepresenting my comments again. Can you please just address my words, instead of putting words in my mouth?”
Sure. You “quoted “Gould for the propositon that he has some problem with evolution.
Here are your exact words:
“Stephen Jay Gould [and others]give a consistent and more detailed description of the fossil record. Why should I trust a biologist to summarize the fossil evidence, and not expert paleontologists?”
Here is Gould making three arguments in support of evolution:
“The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. ”
and he coninues:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
I count you as one of those creationists who intentionally misrepresent Gould.
Reply to this commentDecember 29th 2009
Near the top of the thread, there were a number of posts regarding the question of when homo sapiens emerged. I once read an article that said it is not possible to draw a clean line between human and proto-human. There is a range to the traits we we associate with human, i.e. jaw bone structure, large cranial cavity, bipedal pelvis structure. According to the article, no matter where you draw the line in the bone record, there will be species “below” the human line with human features and species “above” the human line with proto-human features. In other words, if you walk upright, think, speak, eat, sleep, ####, and reproduce, when are you a person and when are you not?
Reply to this commentJanuary 1st 2010
Please explain more about this article you read.
Reply to this commentJanuary 17th 2010
Keller begins by distorting Dawkins’ position: Dawkins has never claimed that you cannot believe in both God and evolution. The phrase “Grand Theory of Everything” is also misleading, since evolutionary theory says nothing about the non-living parts of the universe. Keller’s paranoia in relation to the “new atheists” is pitiful: Christians still constitute a clear majority in the USA and atheists are a favourite hate-group, yet Keller complains that the new atheists are well on their way to establishing the “GTE” as “a set of beliefs considered so basic, and with so much support from authoritative figures and institutions, that it is becoming impossible for individuals to publicly question them.” Citing Plantinga’s ludicrous “‘Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism” doesn’t help Keller’s credibility either. We know we cannot trust our minds unreservedly - visual illusions are enough to establish that; that’s why we need ways to overcome their limitations - such as scientific investigation. Finally, Keller’s “solutions” to reconciling a literal Adam and Eve with science are the sort of piffle only a theologian could take seriously: the literalists at least have the courage of their convictions.
Reply to this comment