RE: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Tue Jan 13 2009 - 13:51:28 EST

I agree that the ASA should help TE's understand science/theology integration, but the ASA has members too confused to offer advice (although some do see things clearly). I was looking at Keith Miller's book the other day (the perspectives one), and read two essays. Both said they accepted evolution but had no solution for integration with the Bible- leaving it a mystery. One was written by ASA's Terry Gray. George Murphy has some help, but remains agnostic on many important issues, such as a literal Adam and Eve. Denis Lamoureux takes a definite position but is too easily rejected as a heretic by many (not me- I deeply appreciate his work). So far, the most helpful to me has been Lamoureux's work (book and online articles). Denis hits the issues head-on... no dancing or tip-toeing around.

Just my opinion...


From: David Opderbeck []
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:56 PM
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: Iain Strachan; Dehler, Bernie;
Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

I don't want to speak for Bernie or to criticize personally, but here is my take, from experience: it's very possible to lose any functioning filters and foundations when first dealing with all this stuff. I personally wish organizations like the ASA were better at helping people rebuild their filters and foundations after the traumatic experience of realizing that an apologetic built around criticizing biological evolution is inadequate. I'm afraid we're very good at tearing down weak foundations built on YECism or strong OEC concordism, but we're not very good, IMHO, at coming alongside people to rebuild an orthodox Christian faith on firmer ground. Yes, some folks like George M. and others work at this, but it seems to me that this should be just about priority one for the ASA's public outreach -- including on the web and email lists -- and I don't think it is.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael Roberts <<>> wrote:
A quick response Iain.

Bernie's arguments may well help emotionally rather than intellectually . They illustrate the chasm we need to bridge.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Strachan" <<>>
To: "Michael Roberts" <<>>
Cc: "David Opderbeck" <<>>; "Dehler, Bernie" <<>>; <<>>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:30 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Michael Roberts
<<>> wrote:
In fairness to Bernie, he is trying to present an alternative to YEC which
he escaped from. He is seeking to put this over to his fellow Christians who
are/were caught up with YEC and in terms they can understand. In that I
totally support him.

Yes, but is it really going to persuade YECs to suggest that there is
an evolutionary explanation to EVERYTHING?

Patently Beethoven's Ninth Symphony did NOT evolve. Some of the ideas
were derived from the Choral Fantasy, but the notion that the one
evolved out of the other is ridiculous. It was put together by a
creative genius, and some of the ideas in it were regarded as totally
revolutionary. (The "r" makes a difference).

There is just no way you can liken it to evolution. YECs object to
"evolution-ism", and suggesting that everything evolved like that is
precisely what they object to.

To unsubscribe, send a message to<> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 13 13:52:06 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 13 2009 - 13:52:06 EST