# Westminster Seminary and "Redeeming Science"



## Damon Rambo (May 12, 2010)

O.k.

I am curious for any Westminster Grads out there, how you feel about Dr. Vern Poythress' book "Redeeming Science", which does not just espouse Old Earth views, but Theistic Evolution? 

I know that Westminster is a bit lenient when it comes to such things (permitting gap theory and day age proponents on staff), but I was not aware that they allowed views to be this far out.

I figured in light of Bruce Waltke being asked to resigned over this same thing (good for you, RTS!), the question needed to be asked; for faculty, how far is too far? Apparently Westminster is actually endorsing the book...does this not bother anyone?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 12, 2010)

Damon,

I'm not commenting on the book. I've not read it.

To clarify, you're referring to WTS/P. Westminster Seminary California is a distinct institution.


----------



## Damon Rambo (May 12, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Damon,
> 
> I'm not commenting on the book. I've not read it.
> 
> To clarify, you're referring to WTS/P. Westminster Seminary California is a distinct institution.


 
Dr. Clark,

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## KMK (May 13, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> O.k.
> 
> I am curious for any Westminster Grads out there, how you feel about Dr. Vern Poythress' book "Redeeming Science", which does not just espouse Old Earth views, but Theistic Evolution?
> 
> ...


 
Are you sure they are endorsing the book? I know he was part of a debate/conference back March but don't know if that counts as an endorsement. If they are, I don't think John Murray would approve.


----------



## Kiffin (May 13, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> I figured in light of Bruce Waltke being asked to resigned over this same thing (good for you, RTS!)



On a side note: Knox Seminary took in Dr. Waltke
http://www.knoxseminary.edu/Forms/Dr. Bruce Waltke.pdf


----------



## Marrow Man (May 13, 2010)

Damon, I know Poythress favors an OE view in the book, but where exactly does he favor theistic evolution (i.e., page numbers)? I have a copy of the book (picked up used for only $1), and I've flipped through it and read some of his comments against YEC (though he does not seem to mind a "mature creation" theory), but I did not realize he defended evolution.


----------



## lynnie (May 13, 2010)

Totally OK at WTS. Maybe the most famous theistic evolution grad from WTS is Tim Keller.

(my hub went to WTS).

Said this before, but you can't call BB Warfield "too far out" at WTS. Just won't jive.


----------



## Scott1 (May 13, 2010)

One wonders,

When theologians argue for some form of evolution, 

Do they do so based upon their own understanding of the underlying science, or on what basis?


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 13, 2010)

For those interested in reading it it is available in its entirety here for free as a pdf.


----------



## Damon Rambo (May 13, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Damon, I know Poythress favors an OE view in the book, but where exactly does he favor theistic evolution (i.e., page numbers)? I have a copy of the book (picked up used for only $1), and I've flipped through it and read some of his comments against YEC (though he does not seem to mind a "mature creation" theory), but I did not realize he defended evolution.


 
Hey brother,

On page 247, speaking of the evolutionary "tree of life" (the fossil record, which secular scientists have jumbled together to show a line of evolutionary descent), he says (bolding added)



> From where did this tree pattern come, if not from common ancestry? More than one possible answer can be offered. In contrast to the conventional macroevolutionary answer, one may
> simply observe that *God designed the pattern*; it is not an illusion. A single living tree has twigs and smaller branches and larger branches and trunk, which in many respects image one another. The growth of a tree shows the
> pattern of offshoots that replicate the growth of an original single stem. *What
> if the pattern of life through geologic ages mirrors life on a small scale, the
> ...


----------



## RandPhoenix (May 13, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> One wonders,
> 
> When theologians argue for some form of evolution,
> 
> Do they do so based upon their own understanding of the underlying science, or on what basis?


 
Well, from what I understand of the recent Waltke thing, they argue on the basis of the underlying science and not on an understanding of the Biblical text. It seems science is the lens through which they now interpret Scripture. Just my


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (May 13, 2010)

> From a Christian worldview, we should affirm that, in principle, God
> could create animals either instantaneously or gradually, as he chooses. He
> could use a preexisting life-form as his starting point, just as he used Adam’s
> rib to create Eve. Whether he used extraordinary or ordinary means remains
> ...


 P258 

it seems like he's pulling the emergent method of inquiring. not agreeing but not disagreeing.... saying a lot but not saying anything.


----------



## ClayPot (May 13, 2010)

Out of curiosity, is there anyone who makes a truly exegetical case for evolution? I know that exegetical cases for an old earth are made, but that is very different from evolution. Usually, it seems I hear that the Bible is compatible with evolution, but have never actually heard a case made from the Bible for evolution.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 13, 2010)

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Futato about the Dr. Waltke situation recently and RTS' stance in general. He said that the general view is that if you do not make a big deal about your evolutionary views and you never deny the historical Adam, then RTS has no problem.

I am purely speculating, but maybe something along the same line is true for WTS/P?


----------



## RandPhoenix (May 13, 2010)

On a side note...Tim Keller is a theistic evolutionist? I know from his "Reason for God" he allows that one could BE a TE, but I didn't know he actually espoused such a view. Does he deny the Genesis 2-3 account?


----------



## MRC (May 13, 2010)

jpfrench81 said:


> Out of curiosity, is there anyone who makes a truly exegetical case for evolution? I know that exegetical cases for an old earth are made, but that is very different from evolution. Usually, it seems I hear that the Bible is compatible with evolution, but have never actually heard a case made from the Bible for evolution.


 
At this point the think-tank _Reasons to Believe_ has begun to publish what they call a "testable model for creationism". They argue that both a young earth perspective and the intellegent design approach is incorrect both scientifically and theologically. Check out their materials, they have many resources.


----------



## sastark (May 13, 2010)

MRC said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, is there anyone who makes a truly exegetical case for evolution? I know that exegetical cases for an old earth are made, but that is very different from evolution. Usually, it seems I hear that the Bible is compatible with evolution, but have never actually heard a case made from the Bible for evolution.
> ...


 
Could you give a specific example showing where Reasons to Believe says Intelligent Design is incorrect? There are quite a few professors at Biola who are very pro-ID, and also very pro-RTB.


----------



## SRoper (May 14, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Damon, I know Poythress favors an OE view in the book, but where exactly does he favor theistic evolution (i.e., page numbers)? I have a copy of the book (picked up used for only $1), and I've flipped through it and read some of his comments against YEC (though he does not seem to mind a "mature creation" theory), but I did not realize he defended evolution.
> ...


 
I'm not seeing theistic evolution in that quote.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 14, 2010)

SRoper said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...


 
What do you see?


----------



## Damon Rambo (May 14, 2010)

SRoper said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...


 
??
"evolutionary theory within a framework of design"? That is the definition of theistic evolution. I invite you to re-read it.


----------



## cih1355 (May 17, 2010)

It sounds like he is making a contrast between the conventional macroevolutionary answer and his view. It sounds like he is saying that God used evolution to produce the different kinds of organisms we see today. If that is his view, then the conventional macroevolutionary answer must be naturalistic evolution.


----------



## Theoretical (May 18, 2010)

It seems like there's two main differences between the theistic evolution liberals hold and this type of evolution-y viewpoint:

1. The unique, historical creation of Adam and Eve
2. Substantially more direct involvement of God within the Creation as it came to the present.

As an exposition of #2, it seems like (from the other sections of the book on this subject that I've read) Poythress might be comfortable with an theistic evolutionary idea that nonetheless involves significant ongoing creative activity in directing the way the creatures will evolve, rather than simply setting the creation loose to evolve. In that regard, it may be that the difference between this type of "theistic evolution" and "day-age creation" are thin indeed or even differences without distinction.

I think the main flaw of such a theory would be denigrating works of Creation and over-expanding works of Providence.


----------



## jwright82 (May 19, 2010)

> Hey brother,
> 
> On page 247, speaking of the evolutionary "tree of life" (the fossil record, which secular scientists have jumbled together to show a line of evolutionary descent), he says (bolding added)
> 
> ...



It seems to me that the question he starts with puts him against the contraversial part of evolutionary theory. Common ancestry is the belief that we all came from the same genetic liniege in time. He seems to be offering an alternative to this beleif which does not make him an TE, they hold to a common ancestry view. There are many parts to evolutionary theory so holding to some but not all doesn't make one an evolutionist. But I have never read the book, so I can't say for sure.


----------

