Re: [asa] Ratcheting Concordism in Dennis Venema's talk at ASA meeting

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Tue Dec 01 2009 - 15:35:33 EST

So, Dennis, then you are a polygenist. You reject monogenesis. Is that right? Why? Because it says so in Biology or Palaeontology? Right? Btw, I've studied ratcheting an awful lot in economics too. Gregory ~   Ratcheting concordists are easy to spot – they have theological investments in specific scientific interpretations of Genesis. For example, I met a few ASAers at Baylor who accepted CD, but were struggling to work the population genetics data into their scheme. They were evolutionary monogenists – they accept CD, but feel that God founded the whole human race through a literal pair. Why? “Because it says so in Genesis.” Hopefully that explains my thinking. Just remember IANAT (I am not a theologian). :) Dennis On 01/12/09 9:43 AM, "" <> wrote: Okay --"ratcheting concordism" -- my interest is piqued.  Any chance of a quick >synopsis?  Even on our cable modem here at school it took me a few minutes to >get the downloaded slides.  And those only show the tantalizing points being >discussed, not the discussion itself.  The actual video/audio is going to take >longer to download than I have right now.  But I'd still love a sentence or two >explanation if available. > >--Merv > > >Quoting Dennis Venema <>: > >> Hi Steve, >> >> thanks for sending this direct - I do tend to be pretty hit-and-miss here. >> >> The term is one I coined - to describe what I see as a phenomenon in >> scientific concordist approaches to Scripture. >> >> Dennis >> >> >> On 01/12/09 5:40 AM, "Steve Martin" <> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I was interested in Dennis Venema's term "Ratcheting Concordism" at the ASA >> meeting.  (see presentation slides here >> <>  & >> audio here <>  ... his brief >> mention of ratcheting concordism occurs around 36:00 min time). >> >> Dennis describes ratcheting concordism as a scriptural concordist strategy >> that, when in the face of overwhelming evidence, will ratchet over one >> position and lock in there (until the next batch of evidence comes along). >> >> Now, I know Dennis isn't a theologian but I'm intrigued by that term ... & I >> think it is helpful (not like I'm showing my cards here :-) ).  I'm wondering >> a) if this is a new term and b) if others think this is helpful.  I would >> especially be interested in hearing comments from those who believe that some >> historical and/or scientific concordism is important &/or essential for >> interpreting Gen 1-11 if we are to hold a high view of scripture. >> >> cc'ing Dennis too ... not sure if you are as hit-and-miss on this list as I >> am. >> > > > > __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 1 15:35:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 15:35:38 EST