# CRC and Theological Implications of Evolution



## Nate (Jun 24, 2013)

Are there any CRC members on the Puritan Board who know how the following Banner article was received in the denomination: Tomorrow's Theology? 
I think someone is finally being honest about the end to which evolution leads, but it seems pretty extreme for a denomination that maintains the name "Reformed".


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jun 25, 2013)

Be thankful for the strong consistent witness and character of the PRC ministry with which you're numbered, Nate! I recently watched a very eye opening conference video from Greenville Seminary (their 2011 summer conference on the very subject.) What a complete loss and shameful teaching from this Banner publication. So we need to re-evaluate the human condition, the work of Jesus, the applicability of it to our lives, the reliability of Scripture? God have mercy on this heresy hawker.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2013)

I don't know about "inevitability" and all that. But I will repeat something I've said a while ago, and expect to repeat a few more times before I die (if the Lord tarries... hmmm, is that one of the doctrines we will have "outgrown in 500yrs?). Here it is:

*The last people who will be defending Darwinism and every other form of evolutionary theory will be Christian theologians, long after the scientific community--whether dominated then by religious or atheist types--has shelved the whole notion as an antiquated and backward paradigm for interpreting reality, and replaced it with WHATEVER.*

They will defend it, along with the rest of the "scientific dinosaurs" who haven't yet retired from their prestigious professorial chairs at leading universities. I think we're already seeing the beginnings of a kind of wagon-circling behavior, led by RDawkins and others, backed mainly by philosophers and media (i.e. Hollywood) promotion.

I-D proponents, even with the glaring flaws in their stance, are busy making a fatal case against the future of gradualism or punctuated-equilibrium as evolutionary modeling. Darwinism is done for, and its religious-like zealots will not be missed, even by those who "honor their memory" and ascend in their places in academia.

And a certain kind of Christian man-pleaser will still be writing books and articles accommodating his exegesis to the previous generation's "assured scientific results," become passe while he wasn't looking. Others will be standing on the trending street corners, striking the most provocative poses, pathetically trying to "hook up" their theology with the latest spirit-of-the-age. Because they want more than anything else to be _influential_ and _respected_ by the WORLD.

More's the pity...


----------



## Jack K (Jun 25, 2013)

The Banner loves to stir the pot. The comments section probably provides a decent sense of how readers within the denomination received that article. The magazine, though often considered to be on the liberal edge of things in the CRC, is widely read by more conservative members as well.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 25, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't know about "inevitability" and all that. But I will repeat something I've said a while ago, and expect to repeat a few more times before I die (if the Lord tarries... hmmm, is that one of the doctrines we will have "outgrown in 500yrs?). Here it is:
> 
> *The last people who will be defending Darwinism and every other form of evolutionary theory will be Christian theologians, long after the scientific community--whether dominated then by religious or atheist types--has shelved the whole notion as an antiquated and backward paradigm for interpreting reality, and replaced it with WHATEVER.*
> 
> ...



For a long time, there have been competing theories of evolution. So even if the neo-Darwinian synthesis itself is altered or replaced, that doesn't mean an end to the evolutionary paradigm. But I haven't seen any evidence that neo-Darwinianism is on the way out. Intelligent Design represents a small body, as far as I'm aware. I mean, it's the nature of scientific paradigms to change, but I need evidence that it is changing. Otherwise you're just the doomsday prophet who will eventually get it right one day after a mass of failed predictions.


----------



## yeutter (Jun 25, 2013)

I went to Calvin College for one year in the early 1970s. I was an old school, old light, young man who stood in the tradition of Warfield, Hodge, & Gerstner. I came away from Calvin horrified at the liberal drift of Calvin College, and the CRC denomination. I new they meant something different with Common Grace then we did with Natural Law. Common Grace seemed to be the excuse for accepting ideas from the world that should be rejected. I could not put my finger on what they meant by Common Grace for a number of years. The free well meant offer of the Gospel seemed an excuse for semi-pelagianism. I was horrified and left after a year. It has only gotten worse since.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2013)

CharlieJ said:


> Intelligent Design represents a small body, as far as I'm aware. I mean, it's the nature of scientific paradigms to change, but I need evidence that it is changing.



I don't think I-D as a movement has any innate capacity to "shift the paradigm." In my no-account analysis, I think it is "symptomatic" of a general quest for a "way forward," because the path followed by the herd in the past two centuries doesn't have progressive answers any more. It makes sense to me to think I-D's appropriation of information-theory has potential of drawing the attention of more pioneers and path-breakers--provided the general drift does not stagnate. History is replete with examples. I do not think Stanley Jaki's faith that "science" has finally survived a still-birth, means that the child cannot die young.

But no, I'm not predicting great things for I-D; I said "glaring flaws" characterize their stance, in my opinion. However, I do think that their work contributes to the aggregate body of evidence that is demonstrative of blind-evolution's utter inadequacy to pay the bills for the scientific establishment. But that establishment is deeply invested in that house of cards.




CharlieJ said:


> Otherwise you're just the *doomsday prophet* who will eventually get it right one day after a mass of failed predictions.



Well, I have to say the doomsdayers who are waiting on bona fide prophetic fulfillment shall, _eventually_, be vindicated.

And we can simply agree that there are competing analysis on what trend is indicated by the shrill scolding from the RDawkins-camp. Is it panic, or simply hen-clucking?

The one real "prediction" I'm making is that Christian theologians will be the ones sitting alone in the dark when the lights are turned out. That just seems, to my nearsighted vision, consistent with the patterns of the past (trying to "tune" theology to reigning convictions), added to a dim view of human nature.


----------



## Nate (Jun 25, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> And we can simply agree that there are competing analysis on what trend is indicated by the shrill scolding from the RDawkins-camp. Is it panic, or simply hen-clucking?



I appreciate your prediction - it makes a lot of sense when one looks at the behavior of the Christian theologians who are overly concerned about fitting in academically with the world. 

I still don't see the scientific establishment moving away from neo-Darwinism though. My experience is that the tenants of the current neo-Darwinistic theory are stronger than ever, and are actually simply accepted without much thought. I would be very interested in examples where serious scientists are challenging the theory, and where their challenge is taken seriously or accepted by scientists. I've read many of the recent non-religious critiques of the theory (such as What Darwin Got Wrong), but have been largely unimpressed (they also don't seem to be accepted by the scientific community). I agree with your evaluation that much of the current theory is a house of cards, but the challenges provided from the secular arena do not seem to point out the examples that make up this house of cards.

You also indicate that Dawkins is recently apprehensive about a shift in the scientific community's acceptance of evolution. Does this come from his blog or other available media? I do a fair bit of lecturing on this topic and would love to have examples pointing out a serious secular challenge to evolution.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 26, 2013)

Nate,
I agree that the establishment doesn't seem to be moving away, but I'm not sure they're "moving," period. Drifting. bobbing. The strength that is there is in cohesion at this point.

You point out that common acceptance of those tenets goes on without much thought. But this is actually a very bad sign (for any system) because it often means there is no foundation in which to be set. At the very least, we are noticing a case of "unmooring." And what is detached from a deeper foundation--no matter how massive--is only a single major "incident" or step from being swept away. Consider the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not too many people were predicting the raising of the Iron Curtain, the end of the Soviet bloc, etc. a year prior. Maybe not even 6 months.

My point about the house of cards is just that. Will there be a precipitating incident? Or will the whole thing slowly come apart? Something has to take its place, just as neo-darwinism had to come about to give the original concept a second wind. Retrofitting only works so many times.

When I say these guys are "shrill," I don't mean to indicate that they concede the cracks in their facade. I'm describing their publicity campaign as carping; RDawkins is the poster boy. What they claim is: the reason religious alternatives still exist is that they haven't been sufficiently exposed as *ridiculous*. Seriously, does "science" need PR? What does that say about the power of the idea they've decided is the solution to all ills and the foundation of reality? It can't make it without marketing?

Anyway, I need to stop pontificating, as I'm generating way more heat than light (obvious when I have to clarify myself too much). Next time I come across something that sounds like something you might be interested in, I'll PM you.


----------



## Nate (Jun 26, 2013)

Excellent points Rev. Buchanan. Thanks for your input.


----------

