In 1993, well-known apologist William Lane Craig debated professional atheist Frank Zindler concerning the existence of the Christian God. The debate was published as a video by Zondervan in 1996 and is readily available at YouTube. The consensus among theists and atheists is that Craig won the debate. Still, Zindler presented there a challenge worth revisiting:
"The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."
"The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."
That particular conflict is getting a lot of play lately, even at the uber-theistic-evolution site Biologos. At least they are acknowledging evolution is incompatable with a "normal" reading of Genesis, Paul and Peter. Their "intellectually satisfying" answer is to treat Darwinism as infallible and find a way to reinterpret significant critical passages of scripture so as not to ruffle the feathers of the scientific consensus.
But Dembski finds it odd that those who describe themselves as Christian theists find it necessary and even imperative to embrace naturalistic Darwinism, and he finds it quite disturbing that many see it necessary to attack both creationism in all its forms and intelligent design.
"When I got into this business 20 years ago, I thought that any Christian (and indeed any theist), given solid evidence against Darwinian evolution ... would be happy to trash it and move to some form of intelligent design (whether discrete creations or gradual guidance or information front-loading or whatever). But that has not happened. Theistic evolutionists have now baptized Darwinism. Thus, in the 2001 PBS evolution series, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller referred to himself as an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinian. Francis Collins and his associates at www.biologos.org follow Miller here in trying to convince religious believers that Darwinian evolution provides the best fit with their faith.
"Ironically, theistic evolutionists now make common cause with atheistic evolutionists—specifically against ID. ID has become public enemy number one for both atheistic and theistic evolutionists..."
Exactly what I have been sensing. The TE crowd believes the only way to save Christianity is to find some way to reinterpret scripture, because the only way to save Christianity intellectually in the eyes of the "irrefutable truth" of evolution, is to fully embrace Evolution as fact and bend Christianity to fit it. The following quote was a bit more disturbing.
"...Consequently, not just the mainstream academy but the mainstream Christian academy (Wheaton College, Calvin College, Seattle Pacific University, etc. — most schools in the CCCU) have now closed their doors to ID and to hiring faculty that explicitly support it."
So we have reached the state of affairs where it is academically impermissible at evangelical Christian schools of higher learning to question Darwinian naturalism. One cannot entertain even intelligent design and teach science at Wheaton? His charge is appropriate:
"The Christian academy is as guilty here as the non-Christian. Thus, we find theistic evolutionists not just criticizing ID but denying it any legitimacy whatsoever. How convenient, since adopting the party line grants theistic evolutionists acceptance in the secular culture denied to ID proponents."
Dembski sees this as liberating. He believes those who reject Darwinism should feel free to pursue their research and ideas without even bothering to seek acceptance from the academic gatekeepers, not only at secular universities but at evangelical colleges.
I hope he is right. But ridicule and contempt are already the norm for anyone who questions the "facts" of naturalism and common descent even on the "Christian" TE blogs. I don't see things getting any easier.
The funny thing is that the TE advocates seem to think that by dismissing anyone who questions Darwin as intellectually inferior they will retain a level of respect in the secular academy. I think that is a fools wager. Why would those who believe Darwin spells the death knell of Christianity have any respect for those who want to affirm on one hand that all things can be explained by purely natural processes, but insist God is really behind it all in ways that are completely undetectable to science? Theistic Evolution will be as unacceptable in the secular academy as ID and Creationism are now.
What will Wheaton College and Calvin College do then to retain their accreditation and academic status?
No comments:
Post a Comment