Comments on: Eugenie Scott at Colorado State University http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/ A group blog of ASA members Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:24:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Is Inerrancy the Defining Feature of Evangelicalism? « ASA Voices http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-2/#comment-480 Is Inerrancy the Defining Feature of Evangelicalism? « ASA Voices Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:02:09 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-480 [...] Is Inerrancy the Defining Feature of Evangelicalism? By Terry Gray, on May 10th, 2010 The response of ASA members to the resignation of Bruce Waltke from RTS prompts me to write this. Perhaps I am mis-reading my fellow ASAers, but it seems that there is little grasp of a divide that occurred in evangelicalism over forty years ago–a divide that continues to this day as I see it. This is a response in part as well to comments of Ted Davis and George Murphy to my post about Eugenie Scott’s visit to CSU. [...] [...] Is Inerrancy the Defining Feature of Evangelicalism? By Terry Gray, on May 10th, 2010 The response of ASA members to the resignation of Bruce Waltke from RTS prompts me to write this. Perhaps I am mis-reading my fellow ASAers, but it seems that there is little grasp of a divide that occurred in evangelicalism over forty years ago–a divide that continues to this day as I see it. This is a response in part as well to comments of Ted Davis and George Murphy to my post about Eugenie Scott’s visit to CSU. [...]

]]> By: Ide Trotter http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-282 Ide Trotter Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:25:47 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-282 Further to Terry Grey’s saying he  “was nearly in total agreement with the scientific arguments presented (critical of YEC and ID). Her clear definition of evolution, her distinction between common ancestry and various mechanisms of evolution, and her rebuttals of Dembski and Behe were all things that I agreed with and have used in my own presentations. In general, I would call NCBE a friend of ASA.” And “Anthropology, archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), forensics, etc. are all scientific. Social and human sciences all deal with intelligent agents. Admit it, and then explain why ID is different, ” apparently due to “the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer” being outside the claims of ID.   Several introductory observations. I wasn’t aware that NSCE was no longer addressing all of science but was now restricted to Biology.  Having heard Dr. Scott speak on several occasions I’m still waiting to hear her give a “clear definition of evolution” so I’m sorry I missed this presentation. Frankly, I found her about as clear as the NAS instruction on the teaching of biology that conflates cosmology, geology and biological evolution. The NAS seems to imply a definition reducing to change over time that doesn’t help us very much.  It is not clear to me why dismissing ID for being coy as to “the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer” is justified.   It seems to me it might be helpful to search for a scientific scale as an alternative to the semantic differentiations we struggle with. It appears that there is at least an agreed starting point for BioLogos(TE), RTB(OEC), ICR(YEC) and others. The Creator God started it. Differences as to how, how often, when and where God may have intervened in the causal flow of nature and how that should be understood in relation to the Scriptural text leads to the different views.  I t would be illuminating to see how the currently held timeline and intervention views of the main groups compare.  Just as the BioLogos group feels it constructive to avoid the loaded and misunderstood term “evolution,” there might also be a way to get away from “God of the gaps” arguments.  Personally I would hope we could develop some sort of probability assessment.  For example, my current impressions line up in an order like this. 1)  Science may eventually make me feel comfortable that common descent is more firmly established than common design. 2)  Natural processes for the origin, deracimization and polymerization leading to uncoded nucleotide chains of biologically interesting degree of polymerization is rather improbable. 3)  Natural process for encoding these nucleotide chains with the complex specified information requisite for life appears vanishingly improbable.   There is considerable activity of varying degrees of promise atacking point 2).   So far I am unaware of any promising approach to 3) that doesn’t suffer from the displacement problem.  That is, shoving off stage a mechanism that is richer in complex specified information than the product of the exercise.     Further to Terry Grey’s saying he  “was nearly in total agreement with the scientific arguments presented (critical of YEC and ID). Her clear definition of evolution, her distinction between common ancestry and various mechanisms of evolution, and her rebuttals of Dembski and Behe were all things that I agreed with and have used in my own presentations. In general, I would call NCBE a friend of ASA.” And “Anthropology, archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), forensics, etc. are all scientific. Social and human sciences all deal with intelligent agents. Admit it, and then explain why ID is different, ” apparently due to “the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer” being outside the claims of ID.
 
Several introductory observations. I wasn’t aware that NSCE was no longer addressing all of science but was now restricted to Biology.  Having heard Dr. Scott speak on several occasions I’m still waiting to hear her give a “clear definition of evolution” so I’m sorry I missed this presentation. Frankly, I found her about as clear as the NAS instruction on the teaching of biology that conflates cosmology, geology and biological evolution. The NAS seems to imply a definition reducing to change over time that doesn’t help us very much.  It is not clear to me why dismissing ID for being coy as to “the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer” is justified.
 
It seems to me it might be helpful to search for a scientific scale as an alternative to the semantic differentiations we struggle with. It appears that there is at least an agreed starting point for BioLogos(TE), RTB(OEC), ICR(YEC) and others. The Creator God started it. Differences as to how, how often, when and where God may have intervened in the causal flow of nature and how that should be understood in relation to the Scriptural text leads to the different views.  I t would be illuminating to see how the currently held timeline and intervention views of the main groups compare.  Just as the BioLogos group feels it constructive to avoid the loaded and misunderstood term “evolution,” there might also be a way to get away from “God of the gaps” arguments.  Personally I would hope we could develop some sort of probability assessment.  For example, my current impressions line up in an order like this.
1)  Science may eventually make me feel comfortable that common descent is more firmly established than common design.
2)  Natural processes for the origin, deracimization and polymerization leading to uncoded nucleotide chains of biologically interesting degree of polymerization is rather improbable.
3)  Natural process for encoding these nucleotide chains with the complex specified information requisite for life appears vanishingly improbable.
 
There is considerable activity of varying degrees of promise atacking point 2).
 
So far I am unaware of any promising approach to 3) that doesn’t suffer from the displacement problem.  That is, shoving off stage a mechanism that is richer in complex specified information than the product of the exercise.
 
 

]]> By: Ted Davis http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-269 Ted Davis Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:01:10 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-269 As for science education (the main topic of this thread), I find Dr Scott's comments very interesting--especially when coupled with the context in which they were made.  I know that Dr Scott identifies herself as a "secular humanist" (there is such a religious group, formally speaking, and I understand that she belongs to it), so perhaps the group that sponsored her at CSU was assuming that she would take an aggressively Dawkinsian approach to "science and religion."  She does not.  At one time perhaps she would have (I sense that she might have, several years ago), but in recent years she has (I believe) come to believe genuinely in what she said or implied at CSU: namely, that science does not equate with atheism, that reasonable people can disagree about the religious implications of science, and that science educators should concentrate on getting the science right. As a former science teacher myself, I agree with this: let the teachers convey as accurately as possible what the science is about--including (especially) why scientists reach the conclusions that they reach (that is, how science actually works) -- without expecting or requring all of their students to embrace all of those conclusions.  However, the students ought to be expected to understand the basis for the conclusions (to a limited degree, obviously, you can't make scientists out of everyone) as part of learning science.   You can only accomplish this, IMO, by recognizing that instructional time for science or any other subject is a zero-sum game: to emphasize more how science works, you have to take out some specific science content.  The people who write curriculum requirements and textbooks realize this in theory, but it's often hard to tell in practice that they do.  You can't just add things without taking things out. As for science education (the main topic of this thread), I find Dr Scott’s comments very interesting–especially when coupled with the context in which they were made.  I know that Dr Scott identifies herself as a “secular humanist” (there is such a religious group, formally speaking, and I understand that she belongs to it), so perhaps the group that sponsored her at CSU was assuming that she would take an aggressively Dawkinsian approach to “science and religion.”  She does not.  At one time perhaps she would have (I sense that she might have, several years ago), but in recent years she has (I believe) come to believe genuinely in what she said or implied at CSU: namely, that science does not equate with atheism, that reasonable people can disagree about the religious implications of science, and that science educators should concentrate on getting the science right.
As a former science teacher myself, I agree with this: let the teachers convey as accurately as possible what the science is about–including (especially) why scientists reach the conclusions that they reach (that is, how science actually works) — without expecting or requring all of their students to embrace all of those conclusions.  However, the students ought to be expected to understand the basis for the conclusions (to a limited degree, obviously, you can’t make scientists out of everyone) as part of learning science.
 
You can only accomplish this, IMO, by recognizing that instructional time for science or any other subject is a zero-sum game: to emphasize more how science works, you have to take out some specific science content.  The people who write curriculum requirements and textbooks realize this in theory, but it’s often hard to tell in practice that they do.  You can’t just add things without taking things out.

]]> By: Ted Davis http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-268 Ted Davis Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:51:25 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-268 I am very interested in the comments from Terry Gray and George Murphy, concerning the issue of an historical Adam.  In my experience both personally as an evangelical Christian in various congregations and also as an historian of Christianity and science, this issue has been and remains central for many evangelicals--American evangelicals, at least.  I am not convinced that it is also true to the same degree for evangelicals in the UK.   For me, the crucial theological issues dividing "liberal" from "conservative" or "orthodox" Christians, relative to God & nature & humanitiy, have to do with having adequate understandings of *both* divine transcendence and divine immanence, and for me these come to the fore most of all in our understanding of the incarnation and resurrection events.  If God did not truly become one of us--in which case Jesus was *a great deal more than* simply a human being who trusted his heavenly father--then Christianity is not true.  Likewise, if Jesus was not raised bodily from the grave into a new kind of existence that we will also share with him in the new kingdom (Jesus was the "first fruits of them that slept"), then Christianity is not true. The problem I have with "liberal" Christians from the past (especially the period surrounding the Scopes trial in 1925) and present (I think here of some leading voices in the modern "dialogue" of science and religion) is that they did not and do not believe those things: that is, they did not and do not believe in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, without which Christianity is pointless and historically unfounded. Thus, for me, it is of great significance that we have today a number of leading scientists, theologians, and clergy who strongly affirm the incarnation and resurrection while at the same time accepting evolution (in the sense of the common descent of humans & other organisms, by whatever mechanisms).  Some of those thinkers accept an historical Adam (though obviously their understanding of that is not identical to that of those who reject human evolution), while others do not.  However, the fact that this group exists today--the fact that it is not an empty set--is a very important change from the first part of the last century, when Protestant Christians were faced with a very grim choice: either to follow William Jennings Bryan, Harry Rimmer, and George McCready Price by rejecting modern science in the name of "orthodox" faith, or to follow Shailer Mathews, Robert Millikan, and Harry Emerson Fosdick by rejecting "orthodox" faith in the name of science. I do not see the controversy over an historical Adam as having the same significance for Christian beliefs as the controversy about incarnation and resurrection.  I understand why many evangelicals do see it this way, but in my opinion they need to see the forest as well as the trees. I am very interested in the comments from Terry Gray and George Murphy, concerning the issue of an historical Adam.  In my experience both personally as an evangelical Christian in various congregations and also as an historian of Christianity and science, this issue has been and remains central for many evangelicals–American evangelicals, at least.  I am not convinced that it is also true to the same degree for evangelicals in the UK.
 
For me, the crucial theological issues dividing “liberal” from “conservative” or “orthodox” Christians, relative to God & nature & humanitiy, have to do with having adequate understandings of *both* divine transcendence and divine immanence, and for me these come to the fore most of all in our understanding of the incarnation and resurrection events.  If God did not truly become one of us–in which case Jesus was *a great deal more than* simply a human being who trusted his heavenly father–then Christianity is not true.  Likewise, if Jesus was not raised bodily from the grave into a new kind of existence that we will also share with him in the new kingdom (Jesus was the “first fruits of them that slept”), then Christianity is not true.
The problem I have with “liberal” Christians from the past (especially the period surrounding the Scopes trial in 1925) and present (I think here of some leading voices in the modern “dialogue” of science and religion) is that they did not and do not believe those things: that is, they did not and do not believe in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, without which Christianity is pointless and historically unfounded.
Thus, for me, it is of great significance that we have today a number of leading scientists, theologians, and clergy who strongly affirm the incarnation and resurrection while at the same time accepting evolution (in the sense of the common descent of humans & other organisms, by whatever mechanisms).  Some of those thinkers accept an historical Adam (though obviously their understanding of that is not identical to that of those who reject human evolution), while others do not.  However, the fact that this group exists today–the fact that it is not an empty set–is a very important change from the first part of the last century, when Protestant Christians were faced with a very grim choice: either to follow William Jennings Bryan, Harry Rimmer, and George McCready Price by rejecting modern science in the name of “orthodox” faith, or to follow Shailer Mathews, Robert Millikan, and Harry Emerson Fosdick by rejecting “orthodox” faith in the name of science.
I do not see the controversy over an historical Adam as having the same significance for Christian beliefs as the controversy about incarnation and resurrection.  I understand why many evangelicals do see it this way, but in my opinion they need to see the forest as well as the trees.

]]> By: George Murphy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-249 George Murphy Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:11:39 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-249 A comment on Terry's observation that "it is largely the case that once you have given up a historical Adam and Eve that many (maybe most) evangelicals will suggest that you have moved significantly in the direction toward the theological liberal. "  Last week I was one of the presenters at a "Science for Ministry" conference at Asbury Seminary, & my experience there confirms what Terry said.  "Historical Adam" seemed to be the article by which the church stands or falls for some there.  (Not any of the presenters or Asbury faculty, I should add!)  & that suggests to me that some effort needs to be made to enlighten evangelicals about what "evangelical" means - or should mean:   Centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ.  These people simply have their priorities wrong.  A comment on Terry’s observation that “it is largely the case that once you have given up a historical Adam and Eve that many (maybe most) evangelicals will suggest that you have moved significantly in the direction toward the theological liberal. “  Last week I was one of the presenters at a “Science for Ministry” conference at Asbury Seminary, & my experience there confirms what Terry said.  “Historical Adam” seemed to be the article by which the church stands or falls for some there.  (Not any of the presenters or Asbury faculty, I should add!)  & that suggests to me that some effort needs to be made to enlighten evangelicals about what “evangelical” means – or should mean:   Centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ.  These people simply have their priorities wrong. 

]]> By: Bernie Dehler http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-194 Bernie Dehler Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:02:43 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-194 Terry wrote: "Dr. Scott agreed with my assessment here but pointed out that her motivation was primarily to show that accepting evolution was not inherently atheistic. In other words, it was part of her setting the context that being pro-evolution is not to be anti-religious." I disagree. I left Christianity largely (but not the only reason) because I saw no way to integrate evolution coherently into theology. I think the best attempt at it is Denis Lamoureux's work. I think Dr. Scott is not being completely open because she doesn't want to acknowledge how "acidy" and corrosive evolution is to theology. Her primary goal is to keep evolution in, and ID (and creationism) out of schools. I love it when academic presenters are open and honest and answer all questions. It bothers me when people refuse to answer questions. And when someone asks about her faith, it is relevant to this subject. I went to a Bart Ehrman lecture. He's an academic critic of the Bible. I asked him some personal religious questions, and he was totally open and transparent. It was very endearing. ...Bernie (Friend of the ASA) Terry wrote:
“Dr. Scott agreed with my assessment here but pointed out that her motivation was primarily to show that accepting evolution was not inherently atheistic. In other words, it was part of her setting the context that being pro-evolution is not to be anti-religious.”

I disagree. I left Christianity largely (but not the only reason) because I saw no way to integrate evolution coherently into theology. I think the best attempt at it is Denis Lamoureux’s work.

I think Dr. Scott is not being completely open because she doesn’t want to acknowledge how “acidy” and corrosive evolution is to theology. Her primary goal is to keep evolution in, and ID (and creationism) out of schools.

I love it when academic presenters are open and honest and answer all questions. It bothers me when people refuse to answer questions. And when someone asks about her faith, it is relevant to this subject.

I went to a Bart Ehrman lecture. He’s an academic critic of the Bible. I asked him some personal religious questions, and he was totally open and transparent. It was very endearing.

…Bernie (Friend of the ASA)

]]> By: Richard Blinne http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-191 Richard Blinne Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:42:12 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-191 <a href="#comment-189" rel="nofollow">@Terry M. Gray </a> My point was not about promoting yours or Tim Keller's viewpoint as I happen to agree with both of you. I believe it's important for evangelical TEs (and even evangelical OECs) to make our presence known. Rather, my point is whether Eugenie Scott should promote evangelical TEs. If Bill Dembski saying nice things about evangelical TEs is radioactive what do you think having Eugenie Scott praise us would do! What I find strange, though, is how unimportant whether the proponents of the various positions are evangelical or not. It seems to be more about whether you are pro or anti evolution. For example, evangelicals will readily accept the Catholic Behe and even the Moonie Wells or the agnostic Berlinski. During the Truth Project three people were interviewed with respect to Darwin's finches, Kenneth Miller, Jonathan Wells, and David Berlinski. Immediately following this Del Tackett concluded that people accept evolution not because they find the evidence compelling but because they didn't want to accept the existence of God. This was even when the Christian was pro evolution and the non (orthodox) Christians were against it! @Terry M. Gray
My point was not about promoting yours or Tim Keller’s viewpoint as I happen to agree with both of you. I believe it’s important for evangelical TEs (and even evangelical OECs) to make our presence known.

Rather, my point is whether Eugenie Scott should promote evangelical TEs. If Bill Dembski saying nice things about evangelical TEs is radioactive what do you think having Eugenie Scott praise us would do!

What I find strange, though, is how unimportant whether the proponents of the various positions are evangelical or not. It seems to be more about whether you are pro or anti evolution. For example, evangelicals will readily accept the Catholic Behe and even the Moonie Wells or the agnostic Berlinski. During the Truth Project three people were interviewed with respect to Darwin’s finches, Kenneth Miller, Jonathan Wells, and David Berlinski. Immediately following this Del Tackett concluded that people accept evolution not because they find the evidence compelling but because they didn’t want to accept the existence of God. This was even when the Christian was pro evolution and the non (orthodox) Christians were against it!

]]> By: Ryan Steed http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-190 Ryan Steed Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:28:10 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-190 I am glad to hear that the NCBE is encouraging an emphasis on scientific methodology. During my public high school education (1998-2001), science was always presented as a completed body of knowledge. Of course current research was expanding the frontiers of science, but there was little sense that new data could alter an existing model/theory. Science education at this level will be much improved if students are taught how to think scientifically rather than how to memorize large amounts of material. I am glad to hear that the NCBE is encouraging an emphasis on scientific methodology. During my public high school education (1998-2001), science was always presented as a completed body of knowledge. Of course current research was expanding the frontiers of science, but there was little sense that new data could alter an existing model/theory. Science education at this level will be much improved if students are taught how to think scientifically rather than how to memorize large amounts of material.

]]> By: Terry M. Gray http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-189 Terry M. Gray Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:07:42 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-189 <a href="#comment-188" rel="nofollow">@Richard Blinne</a> No doubt this is true for some, especially if they are YEC. A non-literal Genesis 1 is not an option there, but I suspect that there are many evangelicals willing to acknowledge at non-literal Genesis 1, but unwilling to acknowledge at non-historical Adam and Eve (I, for one, sounds like Dembski, and Keller). @Richard Blinne

No doubt this is true for some, especially if they are YEC. A non-literal Genesis 1 is not an option there, but I suspect that there are many evangelicals willing to acknowledge at non-literal Genesis 1, but unwilling to acknowledge at non-historical Adam and Eve (I, for one, sounds like Dembski, and Keller).

]]> By: Richard Blinne http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/12/eugenie-scott-at-colorado-state-university/comment-page-1/#comment-188 Richard Blinne Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:51:40 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=177#comment-188 I don't think that even limiting the discussion to evangelicals who accept evolutionary processes and/or an old Earth will be successful. Note <a href="http://oursovereignjoy.blogspot.com/2009/12/book-review-william-dembskis-end-of.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> case in point. Here we have Bill Dembski who is an Old Earth Creationist who gives a sympathetic reading to TEs. This caused his Baptist faith to be questioned. Note Dembski's self defense: <blockquote>Johnny T. Helms' concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist. Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I'm an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I've taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.</blockquote> As long as ID proponents let themselves be used as a way to deny evolution by YECs then everything's OK. But if they make the more subtle argument that they only oppose purposeless and undesigned evolution then they get attacked just as much as us. No wonder they mumble about the age of the earth and common descent. I don’t think that even limiting the discussion to evangelicals who accept evolutionary processes and/or an old Earth will be successful. Note this case in point. Here we have Bill Dembski who is an Old Earth Creationist who gives a sympathetic reading to TEs. This caused his Baptist faith to be questioned. Note Dembski’s self defense:

Johnny T. Helms’ concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist. Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I’m an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I’ve taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.

As long as ID proponents let themselves be used as a way to deny evolution by YECs then everything’s OK. But if they make the more subtle argument that they only oppose purposeless and undesigned evolution then they get attacked just as much as us. No wonder they mumble about the age of the earth and common descent.

]]>