Is that how you interpret your response: “Yes, I would imagine so”? To me that’s a half-answer that dodges responsibility after having pointed out in the first place undetailed “theological constraints” that supposedly biased an article on human origins by a Catholic writer.
Rather than simply yes/no, to be more specific with the question: which “theological constraints” (as BioLogos moderator & linguist/anthropologist Christy words it) or lack thereof do evangelical Christians have on the topic of human origins? Could you please name some? References to sources would be appreciated, if possible.
You make it sound like monogenesis is not an evangelical teaching, like it is not even a historical Christian teaching. It is you, Christy, and not Ken Kemp who have aimed to make it sound that way. You suggested Kemp is compelled to believe in monogenesis strictly because he is a Catholic Christian. Otherwise if he were Orthodox Christian or evangelical Christian, would he not be so compelled?
Is Christy hinting here at something special for evangelicals or non-denominationals about how to interpret human origins in Scripture? Are evangelicals not compelled to believe anything about human origins via their particular interpretation of Christianity? That interpretation is how Christy’s comment strikes me.
“evolution has to be situated within the constraints of that encyclical.” – Christy
Rubbish. Obviously you don’t know much about Catholic Christianity.
You write: “Not all Christians care about monogenesis, biological or spiritual. It is of particular concern to Catholics.”
This is a misunderstanding. Spiritual monogenesis is a core teaching of ALL Abrahamic religions. If you are going to deny that with a kind of Jack Kerouac “not all Christians care” attitude, Christy, then respectfully, I’d like to ask you please not to comment on any more of my comments on this topic.
You have said your piece and that is “not everybody cares.” And for people who don’t care, they don’t have to post. For those who do care, let us reason together and sharpen each other this way. I do care about human origins and processes of change, along with almost every Christian, Muslim & Jew that I’ve met to one degree or another, so please don’t throw your shade on our common care about human origins with some kind of boredom patrol.
Fine, you don’t care about monogenesis, Christy. It’s your (& BioLogos’) hinting that polygenesis would/could/might/maybe/should be considered an orthodox Christian view that I care about. It is a BIG problem that I think you don’t see. But you have said you don’t care about that and I can respect that you’ve said it and leave it at that.
Ken Kemp’s paper is clearer and more detailed to me about human origins and the possibility of accepting evolutionary biology and both spiritual and biological monogenesis within an orthodox or Orthodox, catholic or Catholic, evangelical or Evangelical worldview than anything I’ve read that come out of BioLogos. Strangely, BioLogos still won’t highlight or even acknowledge it, which is why it’s actually good that Christy referenced his paper here in this thread (a kind of backhanded compliment to ‘constrained’ Kemp). Dennis Bonnette’s work on human origins, same thing, but not shown on BioLogos, where Walton is the big evangelical exemplar.