> There are other major problems with TE. To quote Wheaton's P.P.T. Pun:
>
> "If man is a product of the chance events of natural selection, [TEs] have the
> problem of convincing the secular world of the biblical basis of humans as
> created in the image of God and of the first sin....
If one's hermeneutics is an extension of (ironically) one's reductionism,
then Pun is right. However, Pun fails to realize that ontological
realities (imago Dei, sin) are not reducible. In sum, don't take a
"cookbook" hermeneutic to an Ancient Near Eastern text (even if it is
indeed Holy Spirit inspired) . . . otherwise you're going to concoct a
witch's brew.
> In their efforts to
> reconcile the naturalistic and theistic approaches to the origin of life they
> have inadvertently put themselves into the inconsistent position of denying
> the miracles of creation while maintaining the supernatrual nature of the
> Christian message...
This is a possibility, not a logical necessity. Does my practising
dentistry with the best reductionistic categories make me inconsistent
despite the fact I believe in miraculous healing (ie, direct
intervention)?
Jim, if you showed up in Edmonton with a sore tooth, I'll bet you anything
you would only let me treat you using reductionist methods.
> This runs into the difficulty....of compartmentalizing
> reality into separate spiritual and physical realms...." [from "Evolution" in
> Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker)]
Again, ironically, Pun's own (tacit) reductionism (and, yes, even
Platonism) is on display here. Specifically, he seems to only appreciate
TE in compartmental categories.
> TE sprang up as a way to accomodate modern science, just as Berkhof expressed
> in his quote, 'theistic evolution is really a child of embarrassment'. We must
> travel back to Scopes to understand the desire to escape such embarrassment,
> which persists to this day. Anyway, this motivation causes some Christians to
> "reach" for TE justification, IMO. Terry Gray, for example, has formulated his
> doctrine in part upon his church's creed (see his post of Tue, 7 May 1996).
> Howard Van Till reaches his "gapless developmental economy" in part through a
> creative reading of Augustine. As an evangelical, I have a slight problem with
> these extra-biblical justifications.
Well, I think you are more of a Fundamentalist than an evangelical from
all that I have read in your posts. So how about the
epistemology that supports your hermeneutics Jim, is it
Biblical? If so, how about citing chapter and verse? Do you really think
you are so "hermeneutically pure" as to not have any "extra-biblical
justifications" in your theology?
> The final, major problem is the TE's overconfidence in the data as interpreted
> through naturalistic science. The more we see that the Darwinian emperor has
> no clothes, the more uncomfortable it's going to get for TEs, who will have to
> admit they were oversold.
Now that is a CONFIDENT statement . . . especially coming from a
non-biologist. Did you ever read the Delphi Oracle? Go read it again,
you might find it helpful, despite the fact it is extra-biblical.
Get my point?
Regards,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------