If you won’t respond productively to questions asked you in BioLogos, I hardly think correspondents will head in droves to see what you won’t respond to on a page that is administrated solely by you, @Eddie.
Just sayin …
Part of the historical context is also that our dear brother Eddie gets on the forum every few days and repeats his frustrations with the “theologically permissive” (or perhaps “theologically vague” or even “non-engaged with the primary historically orthodox theological literature”) nature of BioLogos. A regular part of his diatribe is the “you’re new around here, so you don’t know, but I’ve asked these questions hundreds of times.” I got the talk, too, when I first joined. 
I almost commended you when you posted your summary,
because it seemed to me to explain Eddie’s frustrated comments so well. =) But I thought, no no, I don’t want to provoke a 600-word response from Eddie. But the 600 words have come and gone, so I don’t mind saying it now.
I should say I really do have a great deal of respect for Eddie and when YECers occasionally pop up here, he makes a formidable and stirringly eloquent ally. And my comments here are meant in a brotherly teasing sort of way, not actually frustrated in any way.
Happy Sunday to all!
4 Likes
@Eddie who exactly is making you choose sides? You describe almost exactly my theological position. I’ve been embraced by people here at BioLogos, and there is a real opportunity in society at large for people who can articulate that position. Rather than grinding so much, I think you should continue making an articulate explanation of how and why evolution does not require a wholesale revision of orthodox theology. You will many friends with that message.
This has absolutely nothing to do with ID. That is a patently absurd notion. ID has problems for a different set of reasons. Not the least of which is there history of anti-evolution activism and broken model of science. This has absolutely nothing to do with bending more conservatively.
I think those words provide the resolution of this entire issue. Here is why
When Eddie says[quote=“Eddie, post:16, topic:5318”]
Many of the more prominent EC voices – Karl Giberson, Francis Collins, Ken Miller – actually know precious little about theology – but that does not stop them from making pronouncements about the relationship of science to theology.
[/quote]
I think there is some confusion about who is saying what. Eddie is speaking of a group of scientists who are not trained in theology, and cannot formulate coherent “academic” opinions on theological questions. Since I also belong to that category of people (on a much lower scale) I can see the source of the confusion, and what I say about myself, might apply to other EC scientists with little or no theological training as well.
When I say that I believe that Darwinian evolution fits in with an orthodox Christian faith, and does not leave me conflicted, I am speaking as someone with a deep understanding of Darwinian evolution, and a layman’s understanding of orthodox Christian faith. This has a few ramifications. First, my own understanding of orthodoxy (or providence or any other theological concept) is at the same level of the vast majority of lay Christians. More importantly, it would be absurd for me to try to make any kind of pronouncement regarding these subjects given my lack of knowledge. I think @Eddie would agree with this. In the same way, I would not expect Eddie to weigh in on the biological meaning of epigenetics or whole gene duplication, and their implications for belief.
On the other hand, as a Christian, I need to somehow organize my overall world view in a way that makes sense to me. To do that I take my biological knowledge and combine with what I do know about the Gospels, my feelings about Christ’s love, what I know about Scripture, and come up with a general approach that I call EC. And that is MY version of EC. It is not any kind of academic version, it cannot be, and it should not be.
So, I think its beside the point to complain that EC scientists do not offer a unified coherent theological picture of EC, and also complain that we are not sufficiently trained in theology to do so. This is where the quote from Swamidass comes in. Even if we EC scientists (which include many of the Biologos folks) cannot do this, someone should. In that I agree with Eddie and Jon Garvey, who like Eddie, has been sounding this call for a long time, both here and at Hump. But the question is who?
Denis Lamoureux and John Plolkinhorne, Alister McGrath, and few other EC scientists are also theologians, and their work is wonderful and well worth reading. But, most ECs are not members of that august category. So how can the EC community make any progress. The answer, provided by Swamidass, is the academy. The academy (meaning the community of scholars) is very experienced in the formation of collaborative groups to tackle difficult multidisciplinary issues. I have in the past worked with social scientists, philosophers and historians on projects where nobody could quite follow anyone else. But, if done right, and with the proper framework, such collaborations can be fruitful.
So I would suggest to Eddie and Jon that it might be worth acknowledging that Biologos will not come up with the kind of clear, precise theological manifesto you are looking for, and to turn instead to the making of collaborations. I have enjoyed my discussions with Jon and Eddie, and think that (despite often feeling way out of my depth) such collaborations could work, and that fora such as these two might be place to start working toward the goal.
2 Likes
Eddie, Yes, I agree with that, and with the rest of your comment. If I say for example that I think Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with the idea of the fall, and you asked me what do I mean by the fall, I would tell you my (limited) understanding of the meaning of the fall, possibly quoting Walton or McGrath to some degree. And I should do so. I agree that we should do our best to try to answer questions. But that isnt my main point. While that might be nice in terms of rules of discussion, it doesnt do much to advance the mission of finding a coherent scientific and theological theory for EC. To do that, scientists and theologians need to collaborate, each providing their own expertise. Until that happens, all ECs will have their own slightly different version of what EC means and it fits together.
I agree with this sentiment, but we also need to acknowledge the historical conflict that has engulfed the US evangelical community regarding evolution (in a broad sense) and the accompanying understanding of Biblical teachings. It makes little sense to me to collaborate with liberal theologians who embrace things such as open theism and variations of Adam and Eve, since they put evolution central to their theology, just as it makes little sense to embrace YEC who have a view that evolution and the Bible are incompatible, As I think you understand, collaboration involving different disciplines requires some notion of common ground, and an understanding of a mission statement. If these are lacking, collaboration will always fail. 
An excellent paragraph with 3 well-worded summaries of three biases within the Theistic Evolution movement!
If in the future you could focus your comments to this level of specificity and detail, I think you would get more productive responses…
1 Like
@Eddie, I would also add that your current patterns do not always seem terribly effective at making your point. This is tragic, because I think we all would benefit for a more careful understanding of your theological points.
Also, you often say that this is because people aren’t “being clear”. Sometimes this maybe true. However, in many cases it might be people fundamentally disagreeing with you and wanting to avoid an argument. In these cases, their lack of clarity is (at that moment) intentional, and your insistence on clarity can seem like a theological witch hunt. I do not know you that well, but I do not think this is what you intend at all. It’s just how you current strategy might be perceived by your opponents.
Instead of making so much effort to pin people down, and accusing people of evasiveness (who cares anyway?), I think we would all benefit for clear concise statements of how evolution is compatible with e.g. God’s foreknowledge and sovereignty, miracles, etc. Aside from being less contentious, that approach is easier for others to understand and learn from, In the end, I’m sure, you want to win. Choose a winning strategy. Follow that strategy over instinct.
3 Likes
@Sy_Garte is correct.
I will offer too that I am eagerly seeking collaborations on just this front. I am a scientist that shares many of your theological inclination. There are more like me too. Collaborate with us.
Fair point. I did not mean to offend you.
Honestly, I agree with your theological points in almost all cases I have seen. Far from arguing against you, I’d rather we find a way for you to even better make your case.
Oh, me, me, I do! When are you going to stop referring to ten-year-old conversations you had with participants who are no longer present? Is there a statute of limitations in your mind, or do we seriously have to read the same whining about old discussions and the conduct of people who clearly aren’t listening to you every time someone joins the forum community? Could you not just provide new users a PM with a list of links to the fifty other threads where you have said the same thing? I appreciate your attempts to drop the subject above, but in the future, maybe you could just refrain from harping on it in the first place, AGAIN.
2 Likes
Let me change the subject form this sidetrack with a closely related question.
How do Humpians reconcile reformed theology (with its high emphasis on special revelation) with the tacit natural theology of the ID movement (which seems to strongly deemphasize special revelation, or make it contingent on general revelation).
I’m driving distance from Covenant Seminary (home of Jack Collins) that is the center of the PCA denomination (reformed presbyterian). From interacting with their faculty and students, starting with reformed theology they are heavily biased against ID for theological reasons. This isn’t to say that there are not reformed people (and presbyterians) among the ID movement (of course there is). Many of my friends at Covenant would argue, however, that the tacit theology of ID is inconsistent with reformed thought about the nature of special revelation.
They would explain that no human effort, not even science, can reveal God or compare with His effort to reveal Himself through Jesus. Of course Barth, would strongly agree. As an outsider, this does seem very “reformed” to me.
Humpians, however, do seem to draw strongly on reformed thought, yet are ID friendly. Help me understand? How do you bridge that gap?