DOCSLIB.ORG

God and Evolution: a Review of Four Bethany Sollereder Contemporary Books Bethany Sollereder

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
God and Evolution: a Review of Four Bethany Sollereder Contemporary Books Bethany Sollereder Essay Book Review God and Evolution: A Review of Four Bethany Sollereder Contemporary Books Bethany Sollereder Of the four SAVING DARWIN: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson. New York: HarperOne, 2008. 248 pages, notes, index. books here Hardcover; $24.95. ISBN: 0061228788. reviewed, ONLY A THEORY: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul by Kenneth R. Miller. New York: Viking Adult, 2008. 244 pages, notes, index. [I think that] Hardcover; $25.95. ISBN: 067001883X. Lamoureux’s THANK GOD FOR EVOLUTION: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World by Michael Dowd. and Miller’s New York: Viking Adult, 2008. 413 pages, appendices, index. Hardcover; $24.95. ISBN: 0670020451. are very EVOLUTIONARY CREATION: A Christian Approach to Evolution helpful, by Denis O. Lamoureux. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008. 493 pages, appendices, notes, glossary, index. Paperback; $55.00. ISBN: 1556355815. Giberson’s is adequately so ver the last ten years, there has tion in Christ for two millennia without but repetitive O been an inundation of books needing to have a perfect understanding published on the interface be- of the process of origins. Why should within the tween science and religion. With the readers put time and effort into trying to approach of the one hundred fiftieth disentangle this issue? field, and anniversary of Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species in November and his As a Bible college student in Canada, Dowd’s two hundredth birthday in February, the the evolution debate was completely topic of evolution is again being pushed outside my range of interests. I was not is entirely to the forefront of public thought. It de- a scientist, and I had no grounds on serves to be asked why this topic should which to disagree with the science of off the mark. be of concern to evangelical readers. Af- the evolutionists or of the young-earth ter all, people have been finding salva- creationists. It was not until I was shown that the debate is often funda- Bethany Sollereder received a B.A. in intercultural studies from Vanguard mentally a hermeneutical issue that I was College in Edmonton, Canada, and has spent time on the mission field in both China and Thailand. She is currently working on a Masters in drawn in. Questions like “What is the Christian Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, where her studies focus nature of the first chapters of Genesis?” on evolutionary theodicy from an evangelical perspective. She has been an and “How does God communicate with eager participant in the dialogue between science and religion ever since his people?” were questions that were she realized it would allow her to spend more time in Genesis. Bethany is applicable to my daily reading of the a student associate of the CSCA and she can be contacted by e-mail at: Bible. [email protected] 40 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Bethany Sollereder This paper will compare four new books which with a thoughtful and helpful picture of the man. have been published in the last year: Karl Giber- Neither a hardened atheist vehemently trying to son’s Saving Darwin, Kenneth Miller’s Only a Theory, disprove God nor a deathbed convert who recants Michael Dowd’s Thank God for Evolution, and Denis his life’s work at the last moment, Darwin is shown Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation. I will compare to be a reluctant convert to agnosticism after years and contrast their approaches to the science and reli- of agonizing over the evidence for evolution and gion debate primarily by evaluating their helpful- the cruelties of nature. ness to the average Christian who wants to know how the Bible interacts with science, and how to From this starting point, Giberson traces the his- integrate these two disciplines hermeneutically. tory of this contentious theory in America. Ellen White and the Seventh-Day Adventists, the mon- key-Scopes trial, the writing of Whitcomb and Morris’ The Genesis Flood, and Phillip Johnson’s Saving Darwin transformation of creationism into the so-called Karl Giberson is a professor at Eastern Nazarene Intelligent Design (ID) theory all make an appear- College where he teaches the history of science ance.5 The last two chapters of the book cover some and religion. He holds a doctorate in physics from of the arguments against the ID movement and Rice University. He is the director of the forum on some of the excesses of atheist fundamentalists, faith and science at Gordon College, and is the like Richard Dawkins, and give an explanation of co-director of the Venice Summer School on Science evolutionary theory. Giberson presents only a brief and Religion. Saving Darwin is his fourth book on introduction to each subject, and the overall result is the evolution vs. creation controversy. a string of necessarily weak arguments lined up without adequate explanation or proof. The reader Giberson’s book explodes off the blocks. With a is reminded of the theological claims abandoned in subtitle of “How to Be a Christian and Believe in the introduction. Evolution” expectations are set very high. In the introduction, Giberson tells the story of how he, as a It is unclear who the primary audience is meant “teenage fundamentalist” Christian, came to peace to be. If the book was written for a popular audience with evolution.1 He also sets forth three provocative to teach them how to hold evolution and Christian- theological points. First, he rejects the literal inter- ity in balance, it should have dealt with the primary pretation of the six days of creation.2 Second, he concern of a popular audience: how to read the Bible dismisses the historicity of the Fall of humanity, in a way that can accept the conclusions of science. generalizing it into a basic principle of human In Mark Noll’s words, “the appeal to Scripture nature.3 Third, he states that we should begin to remains the heart of creationism,”6 and so the anti- widen our understanding of what it means to be dote to creationism must make a similar appeal. A made in the image of God, extending this label even call to embrace evolution without an accompanying to other species, such as some of the great apes or, introduction to a new hermeneutic will not help a indeed, any species that shows cognitive awareness popular audience. Giberson himself acknowledges and altruistic behavior.4 Thewaythesethreepoints that “reflection on the evolution controversy con- are introduced gives the reader the impression that vinces me that the conflict is only tangentially scien- the book will further explore these issues in relation tific. Those who would adjudicate this dispute by to the biblical witness and expand on why these appealing to science are wasting their time.”7 three changes should be made. It is a teaser that is Despite this recognition, he does not once deal with never fulfilled. The book is actually a history of evo- issues of the inerrancy of Scripture or the nature of lutionary theory and its acceptance (or lack thereof) Genesis. As a result, Giberson loses what could have in America. These three important conclusions are been a very helpful book for the average layperson. simply stated in the introduction and then never re-explored, explained, or challenged. The book is a fine example of a history of Darwin- ism8 in America (of which there are already many9), The book begins in earnest with Darwin himself. but that hardly accounts for the subtitle. It fails to Giberson weaves his way through the myths and stand out in the already crowded discussion sur- legends surrounding the great scientist, and emerges rounding science and religion. Volume 61, Number 1, March 2009 41 Essay Book Review God and Evolution: A Review of Four Contemporary Books Only a Theory challenge is, in reality, dangerously undermining Kenneth Miller is a biology professor at Brown thebasisofscienceitself.Thecrisiscausedbythe University. He has written several high school and ID movement is shown to be closely related to the college level textbooks that are used nationwide, relativism that wreaked havoc in the humanities as as well as the popular book Finding Darwin’s God outlined in Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American (2000). He testified in the 2004 Atlanta trial concern- Mind (1987). The quest for truth is abandoned in ing his book Biology, co-authored with Joseph Levine, favor of a scheme where tolerance is the highest and was the opening witness at the September 2005 value. As a result, everything becomes relativized. Dover trial on the teaching of ID theory in public For this to happen in the sciences, Miller argues, it schools. would mean a total redefinition of science. In short, the ID movement theorists and their Wedge docu- Only a Theory is an incisive exposé of the ID ment will have achieved their purpose.16 What is movement.10 In the first five chapters, Miller pres- needed instead is for evolutionary science to be ents the case for ID, knocks it down, and then builds divorced from the politics of the day so that it can a case for evolution. The last three chapters deal continue correcting itself through established scien- with the politics and organization of the ID move- tific methods. ment, how scientific theories end up on trial in courtrooms, and musings on the future of science The book ends with a rumination on the power of in America. story. The ID movement tells us that life has mean- ing and purpose—that we were meant to be here First, Miller goes through each of the “so-called and are specially designed for life.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Intermediate" Models of Origins
    Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 15/1 (Autumn 2004): 71–92. Article copyright © 2004 by Jim Gibson. Issues in “Intermediate” Models of Origins Jim Gibson Geoscience Research Institute Discussion of issues in creation is often focused on contrasting the theory of naturalistic evolution with the biblical model of a recent, six-day creation. The differences between these two theories are profound, and the contrasts can read- ily be identified in such issues as whether the universe and human life were pur- posefully designed, the nature and extent of God’s actions in the universe, and the extent to which answers to philosophical questions can be inferred from na- ture and from Scripture. Biblical creation is based on a literal-phenomenal1 interpretation of Genesis 1–3 and other creation texts. The biblical model affirms that humans were sepa- rately created in a supernatural act of creation, some thousands of years ago, at the end of a six-day creation. They were endowed with the image of God and the possibility of eternal life. The original human pair freely chose to distrust God, bringing death and other evils into the world. By contrast, naturalistic evolution is based on a naturalistic approach to sci- ence, without respect to biblical teachings. Naturalistic (“scientific”) evolution claims that humans developed from ape-like ancestors, through strictly natural processes, over several millions of years. Humans have no special status in na- ture, and there is no basis for believing in life after death. Death, disease, and suffering are simply natural by-products of the processes operating in nature and cannot be considered good or evil in any “moral” sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy
    Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 25/2 (2014): 3-28. Article copyright © 2014 by Adriani Milli Rodrigues. Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy Adriani Milli Rodrigues Adventist University of Sao Paulo, Brazil There are different positions regarding the understanding of the doctrine of creation in the face of the challenge of the evolutionary concept of origins. In broad terms, while some deny the theory of evolution1 in favor of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, many scholars attempt to comprehend this doctrine in certain consonance with that theory.2 1 The present study acknowledges the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. The references to evolution in this text imply the concept of macroevolution. While microevolution refers to small changes within one species, macroevolution describes “the evolution of major new characteristics that make organisms recognizable as a new species, genus, family, or higher taxon.” Stanley A. Rice, Encyclopedia of Evolution (New York: Infobase, 2009), 253. This distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is used, for example, by Stephen Jay Gould. See S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, reissued ed. (New York: Norton, 1992), 187-192. 2 Edward B. Davis indicates “four main patterns” that “govern most religious responses to evolution today: complementary” (“theological truths exist in a higher realm apart from scientific truths”), conflict against evolution (“rejection of evolution”), conflict against Christianity (“rejection of Christianity”), and “doctrinal reformulation” (“rejection of divine transcendence and the wholesale reformulation of traditional Christian doctrine”). Edward B. Davis, “The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals,” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to Perceived Theological Implications of Evolutionary Creation 234 J
    Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies JBTSVOLUME 2 | ISSUE 2 Christianity and the Philosophy of Science Responding to Perceived Theological Implications of Evolutionary Creation 234 J. B. Stump [JBTS 2.2 (2017): 234-246] Responding to Perceived Theological Implications of Evolutionary Creation J. B. STUMP J. B. Stump is Senior Editor at BioLogos and Visiting Scholar at the University of Notre Dame Abstract: In this article I will respond to several common arguments against the position known increasingly as evolutionary creation. I consider an argument that evolution undermines the gospel itself, and other reductio ad absurdum arguments about human uniqueness, divine action, and the problem of evil. These are not technical arguments from academic literature as much as more popularly held views that I encounter regularly in churches and other places speaking to lay audiences about evolution and the Christian faith. Here I attempt to lay out the logic of these arguments (which is often more felt than articulated) and show where they can reasonably be opposed. Key Words: evolutionary creation, theistic evolution, evolution, sin, human uniqueness, divine action, miracles, problem of evil In this article, I will attempt to defend the position of evolutionary creation against what are often perceived to be untenable theological implications of the position. I will not offer evidence or arguments here for the science of evolution, but proceed via the conditional, “if evolution is true. .” As a prelude to that, I will first defend the terminology of “evolutionary creation” (EC) over against the more broadly used (broadly in two senses) label of “theistic evolution.” Historian of science, Edward B.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution &Creation When Did Death Begin? Adventisttoday Editor J
    trump contemporary Book cards christian music Review FaLL 2010 • www.atoday.com adventistToday evoLUtioN &cReatioN WhEN DiD DEath BEGiN? AdventistToday Editor J. David Newman DEPARTMENTINSIDEVOL. 18 NO. 4 Copy Editor Debra J. Hicks Contributing Editors Nathan Brown, James Walters Art Director Chris Komisar Online Editor Marcel Schwantes Webmaster Ryan Harrell Executive Director of Development Edwin A. Schwisow FOUNDATION BOARD James Walter – Acting Board Chair, Clive Holland – Board Chair Designate, Mark Gutman -Treasurer, Larry Downing, COVER STORY Elwin Dunn, Edmund Jones, Chuck Mitchell, Jim Nelson, Randy Roberts, Nate Schilt, J. Gordon Short, James Stirling, Eldon Stratton, Ervin Taylor, David Van Putten, John Vogt 6 Death Before Sin?—No RAYMOND F. COTTRELL by J. David Newman ENDOWMENT BOARD James Walters — Board Chair, James Nelson, Nate Schilt, 10 Death Before Sin?—Yes Ervin Taylor SENIOR LIFETIME ADVISORS ($25,000+) by Ervin Taylor Beth and Elwin Dunn, Patricia and Douglass Ewing, Kathi and Richard Guth, Judy and John Jacobson, Betty and Al Koppel, Joan Ogden, Lori and Thaine Price, J. Gordon Short, 14 Responses to Marilynn and Ervin Taylor, Priscilla and James Walters “Death Before Sin?” HOLDER KATHERINE BY ART COVER LIFETIME ADVISORS ($10,000+) Susan and Hernan Barros, Kelli and Robert Black, Kathryn and James Dexter, Rosemary and Merlyn Duerksen, Patricia Hare, Patricia Phillips, James Stirling, features Nancy and John Vogt UNDERWRITING ADVISORS DEPARTMENTS ($2,500+ during last two years) 16 Trump Cards for Creationists? Stewart Bainum, Arleen and Larry Downing, Sandra and Sam Geli, Mariellyn and Edwin Hill, Carmen and Clive by Beatrice S. Neal 3 Editorial Holland, Erika and Brian Johnson, Carmen and Yung Lau, Susan and Dan Paulien, Tracy and R.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Theory of Evolution Compatible with the Christian Faith? (Leader's Guide)
    Digital Collections @ Dordt Study Guides for Faith & Science Integration Summer 2017 Is the Theory of Evolution Compatible with the Christian Faith? (Leader's Guide) Robbin Eppinga Dordt College, [email protected] Ashley Huizinga Dordt College Lydia Marcus Dordt College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faith_science Part of the Adult and Continuing Education Commons, Life Sciences Commons, and the Practical Theology Commons Recommended Citation Eppinga, R., Huizinga, A., & Marcus, L. (2017). Is the Theory of Evolution Compatible with the Christian Faith? (Leader's Guide). Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faith_science/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Study Guides for Faith & Science Integration by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leader’s Guide to Is the Theory of Evolution Compatible with the Christian Faith? A Study of Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes! Dr. Robbin Eppinga, Ashley Huizinga, Lydia Marcus Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa Summer 2017 1 How to Use This Material? This study of the relationship between the Christian faith and the science of evolution (as presented in Denis O. Lamoureux’s Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes!1) is composed of six/seven “weeks.” Each week contains two sections. The 1st section deals with two sets of questions. The first set, Reading and Reflection questions, are to be completed before each meeting and are meant to help the participant wrestle with the concepts introduced in that week’s chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Faith, and the Media: Communicating Beyond Books
    The 67th Annual Meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation Science, Faith, and the Media: Communicating Beyond Books “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.” —Ephesians 4:25, NIV July 20–July 23, 2012 Point Loma Nazarene University 3900 Lomaland Drive San Diego, CA 92106 Program Contents General Information ........................................................................................................................... 1 2012 ASA Annual Meeting Schedule .......................................................................................... 2 Plenary Abstracts Rebecca Ver Straten-McSparran...................................................................................................... 6 John E. Johnson............................................................................................................................... 6 Ralph Winter..................................................................................................................................... 6 Dean Nelson..................................................................................................................................... 7 Christopher Perez............................................................................................................................. 7 Symposia and Session Abstracts I-A. INFORMATION, GENETICS, AND ORIGINS OF LIFE Stephen Freeland ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • “EVOLUTION” VS. “CREATION” DEBATE Denis O
    BEYOND THE “EVOLUTION” VS. “CREATION” DEBATE Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta THE PROBLEM The 3-Tier Universe Dichotomy: Division of an issue into two simple positions Caused by ‘black-and-white’ & ‘either/or’ thinking Secular Humanism: Belief that humans alone determine morals Conflation: Sloppy blending of distinct ideas into one simple idea TOWARD A SOLUTION Flood Account Chiasm (Gen 6-9) A. Terms & Definitions Teleology: Belief the world has plan & purpose Dysteleology: Belief the world has NO plan & purpose Creation Account Parallel Panels (Gen 1) Evolution: Scientific theory that natural processes over billions of years produced all living organisms, including humans Creation: Belief that the world is the product of the Creator B. Science-Religion Relationship CONCLUSIONS ● Define the Terms & Concepts ● Recognize the Step of Faith from Science to Religion Intelligent Design: Belief that the beauty, complexity, and ● Move Beyond the “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate functionality in nature point to an Intelligent Designer/s FALSE DICHOTOMY ● Consider the Two Books Model: C. Views on the Origin of the Universe & Life Book of God’s Works ➜ Nature ➜ Physical (Back of handout) Book of God’s Words ➜ The Bible ➜ Spiritual Views on the Origin of the Universe & Life YOUNG EARTH CREATION PROGRESSIVE CREATION EVOLUTIONARY CREATION DEISTIC EVOLUTION DYSTELEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION "Creationist" Position Old Earth Creation Theistic Evolution God-of-the-Philosophers "Evolutionist” Position Creation Science Day-Age
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Science As a Foundation for Fostering a Better Understanding of Evolution Craig E
    Nelson et al. Evo Edu Outreach (2019) 12:6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0100-7 Evolution: Education and Outreach CURRICULUM AND EDUCATION Open Access The nature of science as a foundation for fostering a better understanding of evolution Craig E. Nelson1, Lawrence C. Scharmann2* , Jean Beard3 and Lawrence I. Flammer4^ Abstract Misunderstandings of the nature of science (NOS) contribute greatly to resistance to evolutionary theory especially among non-scientifc audiences. Here we delineate three extended instructional examples that make extensive use of NOS to establish a foundation upon which to more successfully introduce evolution. Specifcally, these instructional examples enable students to consider evolutionary biology using NOS as a lens for interpretation of evolutionary concepts. We have further found, through our respective research eforts and instructional experiences, that a deep understanding of NOS helps students understand and accept the scientifc validity of evolution and, conversely, that evolution provides an especially efective context for helping students and teachers to develop a deep understanding of the nature of science. Based on our research and instructional experiences, we introduce six key factors necessary for enhanced instructional success in teaching evolution. These factors are: (1) foster a deep understanding of NOS; (2) use NOS as a lens for evolution instruction; (3) explicitly compare evolution to alternative explanations; (4) focus on human evolution (where possible); (5) explicitly recognize the power of historical inference and (6) use active, social learning. Finally, we elaborate and ground these key factors in supporting literature. Keywords: Evolution, Nature of science, Instructional success Background 2012a, b; Scharmann 1990, 1994a; Sinatra et al.
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue: • Towards an Intellectually Fulfilled Christian Theism - Part I Divine Creativeaction and Intelligent Design in Nature - Denis Lamoureux
    knowledge to faith within societ>-: In this issue: • Towards an Intellectually fulfilled Christian Theism - Part I Divine CreativeAction and Intelligent Design in Nature - Denis Lamoureux • Before the First Day - Duncan Vere FAITH and THOUGHT Faith and Thought is the operating name of The Victoria Institute or Philosophical Society ofGreat Britain established in 1865, Charity No. 285871 OFFICERS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT Professor Sir Colin J. Humphreys, CBE, BSc, MA. Ph.D VICE-PRESIDENTS Professor Malcolm A. Jeeves, CBE, MA, Ph.D (Cantab), Hon DSc (Edin) Hon D.Uni (Stir), Hon DSc.(St.Andrews) FBPsS, FMedSc, PPRSE, FRSE. Professor K.A. Kitchen, Ph.D Professor AR. Millard, MA, MPhil. Professor D.C. Laine Ph.D, D.Sc, CEng, FIEE, CPhys, FlnstP Professor J.W. Montgomery M.A.., B.D. Ph.D, DTheol, LLD LLM COUNCIL (in order of election) Rev. Michael J. Collis, BA, BSc, MTh, PhD. Terence C. Mitchell MA Rev. R.H. Allaway BSc. M.A. Ph.D.(Chairman) Rev. Rodney Holder M.A. D.Phil, FRAS, FIMA Reg Luhman B.D.(Hons) M.A. EDITORIAL ADDRESS Reg Luhman B.D. (Hons) M.A. 110, Flemming Avenue, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex SS9 3AX ADMINISTRATIVE ADDRESS Rev. J.D. Buxton M.A. 15, The Drive, Harlow, Essex CM20 3QD E-mail: [email protected] HONORARY SECRETARY Dr. Alan P. Kerry MBBS MRCGP 112, Kenilworth Drive, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth, Herts. WD3 3NW BANKERS Barclays Bank plc, Westminster Branch, 2 Victoria St. SWlH OND October 2013 1 Contents Editorial 1 Professor Colin A. Russell 2 Towards an Intellectually fulfilled Christian Theism - Part 1 Divine Creative Action and Intelligent Design in Nature Denis Lamoureux 2 Before the First Day Duncan Vere 17 Book Reviews 20 Application for Enrolment 27 Editorial The Victoria Institute was founded iri 1865 in the wake of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species with the intention of defending " ..
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Creation-Evolution Debate Is So Important a Buzzing Little Fly Is Only a Nuisance
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/05/no-buzzing-little-fly-why-the-creation-evolution-debate-is-so-important/ 1/4 AlbertMohler.com No Buzzing Little Fly — Why the Creation-Evolution Debate is So Important A buzzing little fly is only a nuisance. The theory of evolution is no mere nuisance — it represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times. Wednesday, January 5, 2011 The folks at BioLogos ended the year 2010 by declaring “The Dawning of a New Day.” Darrel Falk, president of The BioLogos Foundation, wrote with both passion and anticipation as he reviewed the past year and the impact of BioLogos on the evangelical scene. If making a splash was their ambition, they certainly achieved it. And yet, Dr. Falk clearly seems frustrated that the task undertaken by BioLogos is so daunting. He reports that BioLogos has “barely begun to deal with the issues in a substantive manner.” Furthermore, he explains that the task of convincing evangelical Christians to accept the theory of evolution represents no small challenge. “Why is the task so difficult?” he wonders. He suggests three reasons for this difficulty. First, he argues that the church pays far too much attention to a “scientific enterprise” that isn’t, in his view, scientific. He points specifically to the work of the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Falk, representing the position of BioLogos, insists that the evolutionary “scientific enterprise” is the authoritative world of true science. “For hundreds of years now science has been successfully informing us about the natural world,” he insists.
    [Show full text]
  • PSCF6-10Lamoureux P133-138.Vp
    Essay Review The Erosion of Biblical Inerrancy, or Toward a More Biblical View of the Denis O. Lamoureux Inerrant Word of God? Denis O. Lamoureux THE EROSION OF INERRANCY IN EVANGELICALISM: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority by G. K. Beale. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. 304 pages. Paperback; $20.00. ISBN: 9781433502033. n his latest book, The Erosion of of stellar teaching and the fact that the I Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Respond- majorityofhiscolleaguesdeemhis ing to New Challenges to Biblical views on biblical inspiration to be within Authority (2008), G. K. Beale contends the contours of evangelicalism.4 Beale’s that the doctrine of inerrancy is under attack is aimed primarily at Enns’ belief attack in the most surprising place— that the Holy Spirit employed myth the evangelical world itself. He argues in the revelatory process, particularly that there is an emerging generation throughout the opening chapters of the of scholars, whom he terms “so-called Bible. Of course, the term “myth” is evangelicals,” and their work is a threat volatile in evangelical circles, and Beale to the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical exploits this word and the associated Inerrancy, which he views as “the bench- emotion to pit his readers against Enns mark for an evangelical view of the (e.g., his recurrent use of the phrase that inspiration of Scripture.”1 Scripture is “shot through with myth”).5 This polemical strategy might work with Beale is well positioned to enter this those outside the literary and theological discussion. He is a leading professor of academies, but it only irritates those of New Testament at Wheaton College, one us within, because myth is a well-known of America’s most important evangelical genre of literature.6 According to Beale, schools; and he is a past president of the the use of myth in Scripture “give[s] way Evangelical Theological Society (2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible: Moving Toward a Synthesis
    www.BioLogos.org Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible: Moving Toward a Synthesis BY PETE ENNS Introduction How can Evangelical Christians who accept evolution as a viable model of human origin also continue to value Scripture as God’s word? In this essay, I will attempt to move toward an answer by outlining the specific hermeneutical and doctrinal problem as I see it. Rethinking how one reads the Bible and what one even expects from it may be a key for moving Evangelicals toward a more meaningful synthesis. I realize that not everyone may be convinced of the pressing nature of the problem caused by evolution for Evangelical views of the Bible. Most Evangelicals, however, at least in my experience, sense the seriousness of the hermeneutical, theological, and doctrinal issues raised by evolution and are not content to keep the Bible at arm’s length. They have come to this realization not because they have a weak view of the Bible. Rather, they have come to accept as compelling the findings of several generations of scientific inquiry. Some may have significant first-hand experience with the scientific details of this theory, while others may have a less sophisticated grasp of the data, but who nevertheless accept it. Members of this latter group accept evolutionary theory either because they trust the work of the scientific community in general, or because they may trust those scientists who have made peace with their scientific work and their Christian faith. Regardless of how they come to their views of evolution, they know there is a problem and are looking for ways to bring together their faith and their intellect.
    [Show full text]