Category: Spirituality

An older, but equally excellent, Stackhouse post that mirrors much of my own thinking:

First this:

There are only two respects, then, in which “creation versus evolution” makes sense: first, when certain Christians insist that “creation” must mean “creation science” and thus rule out any divine use of evolution; and, second, when certain evolutionists insist that “evolution” must mean only what Darwin thought it meant, namely naturalistic or atheistic evolution. For then, of course, “creation versus evolution” really amounts to “theism versus atheism.” Put this way, however, we should recognize that we are dealing now with a religious and philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science cannot, in the nature of the case, rule out God as somehow supervising evolutionary processes.

.. and then this:

Maybe evolution, theistic or otherwise, can explain all these things–as Christian Francis Collins believes just as firmly as atheist Richard Dawkins believes. But we must allow that evolution has not yet done so.

And that’s a pretty important set of allowances to make—as the ID proponents, as well as the creation science people, rightly insist. Indeed, the late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould himself agreed, sufficiently so that he and Niles Eldredge postulated “punctuated equilibrium” as a theory to explain the last problem on that list. The creation science and ID people simply aren’t wrong about everything—and their opponents would do well to heed their criticisms, even if they hate their alternative theories.

All of this is right on, IMHO, and it echoes on of Stackhouse’s themes about epistemology and apologetics, which I greatly appreciate: it’s ok to say “I don’t know” sometimes.

The fact, which we evangelicals need to face, is that the basic outlines of contemporary evolutionary theory seem to be sound. All of life does indeed seem to be genetically linked, the amazing and beautiful facts of how genetics operate show that organisms can and do change over time, and contemporary evolutionary theory seems to provide sound explanations for what we find in the record of life on earth.

However, the grand narrative of evolution with a capital-E is inferential and does not in itself account for some important beliefs and affirmations that Christian theology brings to the epistemic table. The evolution-with-a-capital-E metanarrative raises very important questions about “chance,” God’s action in the natural world, and, probably most importantly, about human nature and sin, in ways that seem to require some “push back” or dialectical tension / conversation with theology. So, it seems to me, we have an obligation not to dismiss or ignore basic and well-established principles of how life on earth ordinarily works, but at the same time we do not have an obligation to accept the entire evolutionary meta-narrative. Did God “intervene” at some key points in life’s development? How exactly do Christian affirmations about the uniqueness of humanity, sin, and “the Fall” relate to the ordinary development of life on earth? We don’t know exactly — and that’s ok — we’re not obligated to resolve either end of this tension or to state what we hold and affirm about all aspects of it in stark “either-or” terms. All we really have to admit is that we’re limited in what we can say for sure about how this all works together.

An the ASA list, we have been discussing a post by Denyse O’Leary, on the Uncommon Descent ID blog maintained by her and Bill Dembski, which quoted from another thread on the ASA list.

I was very upset by Ms. O’Leary’s blog post because the thread it referred to from ASA list was started by someone with some honest doubts and questions about the relation of faith and science. Several people on the ASA list, including myself, tried to respond to that person in ways we thought might be helpful (and indeed I still hope they were helpful). Hey, we’re all in this exciting but sometimes nerve-wracking boat ride together.

I posted a comment on Uncommon Descent expressing my concern about this (actually my comment got unintentionally triple-posted because it was originally stuck in a spam filter). My biggest concern was what I perceived as a lack of sensitivity to the person who orginally was some thoughtful and troubling questions of us here on the ASA list. I then followed up on a couple of other comments relating to Aquinas and secondary causes.

My reward for this was to be summarily banned from Uncommon Descent — once again.

I would be lying if I were to say that I don’t care about being banned from Uncommon Descent. I do care, mostly because I’m an intense and competitive guy with an overly active sense of fairness. In another sense, I don’t really care — like the rest of us, I really should spend my time on more productive things than arguing with people on blogs (or email lists) anyway. So, yes, I’m ticked — but I’m not crying in my milk. I’ve been kicked out of fancier joints, I guess.

But what I care about most is Truth and the Kingdom of God. I don’t claim any great insight into either except for whatever grace God has given me. And in my humble estimation, the kind of thing represented by Denyse’s “Letter” and the resulting hoo-ha in the comments thereto advances neither.

I’ve no desire to step into yet another online culture war spitting match. Yet, I’d like the record to reflect my requests and thoughts about this to Ms. O’leary and Bill Dembski. Hopefully someone will take them to heart. So, I offer below for the record the comments I offered to them.

In doing this, I also append a little disclaimer: I do not consent to the quoting or reproduction of these comments in any forum unless they are reproduced in full. To do otherwise would be dishonest. Hopefully that’s scary coming from a lawyer.

Herewith the text of my letter:

Denyse and Bill,

I would love to have the opportunity to continue commenting on UD, but it seems that Bill has permanently banned me. Bill, I’d be most grateful if you’d remove that ban, or at least explain to me why it was made. I was certainly critical of Denyse’s post, but I think my criticism was fair and justified. Further, I think the point about secondary causes and Aquinas was a fair one.

I would at least like the opportunity to continue the discussion on secondary causes, which I think is an important one. Given your own recent post about “directed evolution,” Bill, I’d think you’d agree that the discussion of secondary causes and Aquinas could be helpful. You’ve stated publicly that people who believe in “directed evolution” are ID people. I, then, am an ID person, for that is what I believe, within the specific framework of Christian theology as informed by Aquinas and mediated by folks such as Torrance and McGrath.

Denyse, my biggest problem with your post was that it seemed terribly insensitive to the person who originally asked a genuine question about doubt on the ASA list. You apparently didn’t read the ASA list carefully enough, because half of what you attributed to George Murphy came from the person struggling with doubt, not from George. A number of people on the ASA list tried to offer helpful comments to this person, including myself, as my post on UD shows. Whether George’s specific comments were good or not could be debated (personally I very much appreciate George’s kenotic perspective on creation), but you did a grave disservice to everyone involved by simply yanking out a few lines as you did.

Do you have any problem, Denyse of Bill, with the resources I proposed to the doubting person? Do they suggest in any way the sort of capitulation to materialist philosophy or theological softness that you attribute in your post? Does recommending Angus Menuge’s book “Agents Under Fire” in any way suggest that I have even a tip of my big toe in the materialst’s camp?

Denyse, my second biggest problem with your post was that you did absolutely nothing to help the doubting person while she was on the ASA list. Where were your recommendations to her? What counsel did you give her? It strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to cherry pick from a discussion with a hurting person, to which you didn’t even contribute, and then to twist it into some false accusation about how the Church is going to pot. I have a major moral problem with that kind of opportunism.

Denyse, you suggested to me that I’m afraid of stating in public that I believe in a desiger-God; that I’m shying away from ID out of some concern for my career.

Denyse, I don’t know who you think you are to make a statement like that to me. You don’t know me at all. I’ve been an evangelical Christian for over 30 years; I graduated from an evangelical college; I was a litigation attorney in a major firm for 13 years, and now I’m a law professor. I have never hidden my faith; indeed, I’ve always proclaimed it openly in what I say, write and do.

You may note that I never use a psuedonym when I write online; that’s because I believe in letting my “yes” be “yes.” Visit my blog sometime ( http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog ) and tell me if I seem to be timid about proclaiming my faith in the gospel to a hostile world. More than that, as a worship leader in a local church, I spent hundreds of Sundays, one after the other, standing in front of groups of 800 or more people, mostly strangers, visibly and openly proclaiming that Jesus, the logos who made us, is Lord. Who are you to question my faith commitment when you have no idea whatsoever how I have publicly lived it out?

Trust me when I tell you that I’ve taken my professional and personal lumps for being open about my belief in Jesus and in my affirmation that there is “one God, the the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” For you to suggest that I’m somehow afraid of expressing my belief in a designer-God is unwarranted. If God wills for me to suffer for my faith in Christ, that ultimately is something I will rejoice in.

Finally, your unwillingness to engage the deeper theological questions arising from what “evidence” of design means is gravely disappointing. I’m sure you know — or maybe you don’t know — that the question of “natural theology” has been debated for centuries. It is NOT a capitulation to materialism to suggest that natural theology reveals little or nothing about the designer to unregenerate minds. I consider myself within the broadly Reformed tradition; plenty of great minds in that tradition, Barth not the least, have been leery of natural theology. And it is NOT a capitulation to materialsm to suggest that God ordinarily works through secondary causes — this, indeed, is a classical theistic position that ultimately is a defense against atheistic claims that God is the author of evil. Again, read Aquinas, particularly his Summa Contra Gentiles.

Bill and Denyse, I think the way you are handling your blog is a terrible shame. We could be having productive and interesting high-level discussions about things like Aquinas and Barth and the doctrine of creation, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Instead, we get nastiness, misprepresentations, and censoring even of fellow Christians who affirm the reality of a designer-God!

And let me add this final thought, Bill: I’ve no illusions about my own influence in the world. You’ve never heard of me, and you don’t care who I am, so I’m another buzzing fly to be swatted away. But, I’d humbly suggest that I’m exactly the kind of person you should want to engage. I’m not one of the misanthropic blog trollers who often populate blog comments. I have deep evangelical roots, a fair amount of theological education, and as a law professor at a very good law school, over time, Lord willing I will have an opportunity to influence students and to serve as “salt and light” within the academic legal community. Do you think people like me will have any interest in supporting your ideas or work when we can’t even have a civil discussion about Aquinas and causation?

For what it’s worth,

Sincerely,

David W. Opderbeck
http://www.tgdarkly.com