The Biologos Newsletter
blandly reads:
- In March 20–22, 2012, noted evangelical pastor Dr. Timothy Keller hosted the [Theology of Celebration] meetings at the Harvard Club in New York City…Given data that was presented at the meeting—which convincingly showed that almost half of America’s protestant pastors hold or strongly lean toward a belief in a universe less than 10,000 years old—there was a deep concern for the church not only in America, but also worldwide. This time, leading evangelical Christians left with not so much a statement as an urgent desire to bring about change. The church of the coming decades cannot divorce itself from matters about which there is scientific certainty.
Although Biologos is devoted to selling theistic evolution
to the church, there is no mention of theistic evolution, just their
lamentation that “almost half of America’s protestant pastors hold
or strongly lean toward a belief in a universe less than 10,000 years old.”
I must confess that I don’t know what the conference
discussed. However, it is noteworthy that their statement only mentions the “10,000
years.” Usually, if the theistic evolutionist wants to make the creationist –
the YEC variety – look ridiculous, they’ll say something like, “You don’t
believe that do you? If you do, that means that you are rejecting all the
findings of science.”
They take this tact because it’s far harder to prove
Darwinism, especially when the fossil record is unwilling to comply with this
ideology. However, if you can demean the YEC with the 10,000-year-bit, you
weaken your opponent and make him vulnerable to the more ambitious claims of
Darwinism.
Whether this position is scientifically accurate or not is
one thing. However, their mission to rid the church of a belief that seems to
be Biblical is another. Why is this their mission? Does YEC undermine belief in
the Bible, our understanding of Biblical Theology or our determination to live
the Christian life?
I don’t see how! However, it clearly undermines our standing
in the eyes of our peers and the university. Perhaps this is their main
concern.
Ironically, it is theistic evolution (TE) that undermines
our faith in the Bible and our understanding of it.
In order to support their claims, TEs usually maintain that
the Bible isn’t a science textbook. Indeed! However, what they really mean is
that the Bible doesn’t teach authoritatively about the physical/historical
world, just the spiritual, and the fact that the Bible contains physical errors
shouldn’t affect its spiritual truths. Of course, if they can prove this, then
they have removed any possible contradiction between evolution – the physical -
and the Bible, the spiritual.
However, this formulation is entirely unbiblical for many
reasons:
- Theology rests upon history – the physical world. The theology of the Fall rests upon the theology of creation – that it was all “very good” and we screwed it up. Evolution would have it that it was a bloody survival-of-the-fittest mess from the very beginning.
Perhaps the clearest example is the
Cross. We can’t have a theology of the Cross without a physical history of the
Cross. Consequently, the physical and the spiritual cannot be separated as the
TE suggests.
- If Adam’s genealogy isn’t historical and Adam isn’t historical, then the genealogy that leads to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob cannot be historical either.
- The New Testament often quotes the OT as historical and derives its theological lessons from the fact that God had done certain things in the context of history. For instance, Peter cites the worldwide flood to prove that God will judge (2 Peter 2, 3). However, if the flood is just a myth, as the TEs propose, then the theology based upon the “myth” must also remain dubious. If God actually didn’t judge in the past, we shouldn’t expect Him to judge in the future.
These are just a few of the problems that TEs encounter.
In response, they usually claim that, “We have to be humble (and uncertain) about
our interpretations.” This means “confused.” If there is joy in believing, TE has
undermined it.



Dear Mr. Mann:
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiousity, what is the relationship between Mr. Keller and Biologos?
Sincerely,
D.Smith
DS, I'm not sure. However, Keller had been a board member of Academy for Christian Thought, headed by one of his elders - Ron Choong. This group actively promoted theistic evolution. I wrote to Keller many times about the theological problems inherent in ACT's position but never got a response from him.
DeleteDr. Mann,
ReplyDeleteI won't recite yet again the many inconsistencies and absurdities you have chosen to side-step in the past in order to hold to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament (such as how to account for the "days" of creation several "days" prior to God's creation of the sun or the description of God searching among all the animals to find a suitable mate for Adam). You insist "that theology rests on history. The theology of the Fall rests on the theology of creation. . . Perhaps the clearest example is the Cross. We can’t have a theology of the Cross without a physical history of the Cross." How does the second sentence follow from the first? Theology is revealed in history historical events yes.
Theology rests on God as he reveals Himself in Scripture. There is history ( of sorts) in the Genesis creation accounts, but only so far as the creation story shows us who God is and what He has done. God did create ex-nihilo and He did so progressively.
You insist that "If Adam’s genealogy isn’t historical and Adam isn’t historical, then the genealogy that leads to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob cannot be historical either." OK. But can't they be historical but incomplete? You obviously get the intent and purpose of the genealogies, to establish a link and continuity from "the first Adam" to the second. But there's also a second purpose that fights you're understanding of "history." Matthew's genealogy includes the prostitute Rahab, who wasn't a Jew, and end with Joseph who is not genetically connected to Jesus. Might there be another meaning here? that God works His purposes apart from our expectations?
You seem to imply that the flood must either an historical event or a myth. You state, ". . . if the flood is just a myth, as the TEs propose, then the theology based upon the “myth” must also remain dubious. If God actually didn’t judge in the past, we shouldn’t expect Him to judge in the future." Might the account of Noah be a metaphor telling us of God's judgement?
Evolution of any kind, theistic or naturalistic, has problems. But it seems that in you're attempt to defend the reliability of the Bible you create other problems of interpretation that are no less severe.
Rather than force Scripture to fit my definitions I'd prefer to unearth its meaning through taking it as God speaking; that's a bit undaunting when you think about it.
And that's the central challenge to evolution--thinking; mind over matter. If all is material how is it that thought, which is in no way substantial, can affect the material (some would insist it doesn't). Call mental states spiritual or not, materialism has no explanation for it--just denial. This includes the process by which we "know" or discuss anything.
If the flood is merely "metaphor," then there is little reason to believe that the teaching of the future judgment is no more than "metaphor" - hardly the message that Peter had wanted to impart!
DeleteTruth: If all is material how is it that thought, which is in no way substantial, can affect the material (some would insist it doesn't).
DeleteThis is one of the biggest problems for substance dualism.
Truth: Call mental states spiritual or not, materialism has no explanation for it--just denial. This includes the process by which we "know" or discuss anything.
This is quite simply false.
On a materialistic view, mental states are brain states. Thoughts are brain processes.
An analogy I like to use is computers - they do math, and reason in some sense, they contain and manipulate images, symbols and concepts. All of these things are often taken as being "immaterial" when applied to human minds, but all of them are realised in a purely material substrate in computers (unless you want to posit a "computer soul" or something?).
As far as I can tell, this is simply a non-problem for materialism - not denial :-)
Yet the only way to save anything from the tale of Noah is to interpret it in this way, since it is completely a-historical - it didn't happen in reality.
DeleteWhat you see as compromising the faith is, as far as I can tell, an attempt to save it from falsification and irrelevance.
You seem to have chosen irrelevance rather than compromise :-)
• “What you see as compromising the faith is, as far as I can tell, an attempt to save it from falsification and irrelevance.”
DeleteYou’re actually right. Often times, compromise resulted from the attempt of Christians to make the Faith relevant amidst social disdain. Schleiermacher was perhaps the most famous. In the Kantian atmosphere of his day – in many people’s eyes Kant had proved that any knowledge of the spiritual world was impossible – he conveniently decided to base Christianity on religious sentiments and not knowledge, evidences and knowable truths.
Following Schleiermacher’s example, Christians have compromised their faith into the mold of post-modernism, Darwinism, the Steady-State theory, and even moral relativism. Perhaps this new faith might have been more acceptable to some, but do we really want to push such a man-edited faith? If we truly believe in God, our first concern is to be faithful to Him. Truth must therefore prevail over compromise and social acceptance.
Oh please, Havok. You know better than that!
DeleteRegarding your bold assertion: "I prefer to stick with the actual truth." - What evidence do you have that existence is purely materialistic-naturalistic? None!
Mann: Oh please, Havok. You know better than that!
DeleteBetter than what Daniel?
That you will prefer your interpretation of Christianity to reality when the 2 come into conflict? Your blog is littered with examples of this, and your comments above are simply more evidence.
Mann: What evidence do you have that existence is purely materialistic-naturalistic? None!
The "evidence" that anything that has a successful explanation is explained with reference only to matter/energy, and nothing else.
The fact that there is no methodology or process to produce reliable knowledge regarding anything other than "natural" knowledge.
The fact that the history of human knowledge is a history of supernatural pesudo-explanations giving way to successful natural explanations.
So, as you can see, contrary to your unjustified assertion that I have no evidence, I actually have a reasonable basis for accepting naturalism.
Really Daniel, we've interacted for long enough, and I've repeated that point or something similar enough times that you should actually understand it by now.
None of this is evidence for naturalism or materialism:
Delete• The "evidence" that anything that has a successful explanation is explained with reference only to matter/energy, and nothing else. The fact that there is no methodology or process to produce reliable knowledge regarding anything other than "natural" knowledge.
We both believe in observation of the material world and of science. However, science is NO way proves that there is NOTHING beyond the material world! Science admittedly JUST deals with materiality. You are making an inappropriate leap to suggest that this is all that there is.
Furthermore, science (observation and repeatability) doesn’t say another about where the laws come from or what is their nature – whether or not they are the product of intelligence and transcendent. In fact, the fact that there are unchanging in the midst of a physical world characterized by molecules-in-motion and operate uniformly throughout the universe suggests that they are extra-physical/material.
Your claim that there is only "natural" knowledge is like the claim of the color-blind man that there are no colors. Or even if you do see colors, perhaps your stance is more to be likened to those who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead and conspired to kill both Jesus and to do away with the evidence (Lazarus) without even beginning to consider that perhaps He came from heaven.
Has anyone ever heard the term "useful idiots" employed by Communists?
ReplyDeleteIf so, the theistic evolutionists are useful idiots for secularist atheists.
Truth: If so, the theistic evolutionists are useful idiots for secularist atheists.
DeleteHow so?
Given the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, and the serious issues with creationism, I'd think that theistic evolutionists are useful idiots for theistic creationists, rather than those of us who accept reality as it is :-)
I think that you are right. The latter group parade around their token "Christians" like Ken Miller to allay Christians fear that evolution leads to atheism.
ReplyDeletewalking here with a smile. take care.. have a nice day ~ =)
ReplyDeleteRegards,
http://www.lonelyreload.com (A Growing Teenager Diary) ..