I do have a challenge for those who think that TE (or EC--the preferred
term IMO) *necessarily* pollutes Christianity. No doubt we can think of a
zillion possible perversions of Christian orthodoxy that *may* flow out of
an evolutionary point of view. But it is my opinion, shared by such
stalwarts of orthodoxy as B.B. Warfield, that an evolutionary viewpoint
carefully qualified by a Biblical view of providence and an allowance for
the miraculous, can be considered within an orthodox Christian viewpoint
with very little difficulty.
So my challenge is for you to list the pollutions of Christianity that you
believe are *necessarily* introduced by an evolutionary framework.
Let me make note of several possible ones that you shouldn't bother to
mention because while some consider these items to be essential aspects of
Christian orthodoxy, many of us do not. While we may disagree about these
and you may consider me unorthodox because I don't think that they are
essential to the faith, I'd like to know if there are others that you think
are important.
Possible pollutions that I'm not interested in discussing (for the purpose
of this question)
**********************************************************************
If you accept evolution, you must believe in an old earth.
If you accept evolution, you must believe in death before the fall.
If you accept evolution, you must deny a global flood.
If you accept evolution, you must accept a "figurative" Genesis 1.
If you accept evolution, you deny the uniqueness of human beings in the
image of God (I want to throw this one out, because many of us who accept
evolution are willing to accept a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve.)
In my recent ordeal with my denomination, the ONLY point in the Westminster
Confession of Faith or the Westminster Catechisms that was judged to rule
out my view (animal ancestry of Adam's body) was the phrase in the
Westminster Larger Catechism Q 17 that states that God
"formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground". In my opinion I
did not disagree with this statement since I don't think that the Catechism
(or Genesis 2:7) tells us whether the formation of the body was mediate or
immediate. However, the General Assembly judged that my view does violate
this statement in the Catechism.
The point of this is that no other statement in the Westminster Standards
was brought to bear on the matter. I claimed and continue to claim that
given my (and Warfield's) qualifiers that no point of Christian doctrine is
touched by admitting evolution to be true. Now the Westminster Standards
are a thorough statement of Christian doctrine. Of course, if you are not
in the Reformed/Calvinistic camp, you will find a lot in them to disagree
with, but in addition to being Reformed/Calvinistic they are quintessential
Protestant and Evangelical orthodoxy (with some disputing their doctrine of
baptism and church government).
Given all this, I continue to be amazed at the claims that Christianity is
necessarily polluted by accepting evolution to be true.
Terry G.
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html