Eddie's Defense of Natural Theology

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie, thanks for answering. I want to us to fall into a better pattern here.

In the past, you’ve often been forced into to the role of “prophet in the wilderness”, repeating the same message over and over in the hopes you would be heard. That is not necessary here. I want a better pattern. I want to hear you out, and that is a purpose of this thread.

I’m really looking forward to seeing you work out a balanced corrective, that is constructive and helps us all move forward. I see the beginnings of that here. I want to pull out some of the more helpful things here.

@Eddie

I agree that correctives are needed to the excesses of all sides in these debates (TE, ID, YEC, New Atheism, etc.).

@Eddie

The reason I spend so much time correcting TE rather than ID folks is that TE folks, unlike ID folks (who purport to be doing only design detection, not theology) are, as Jon Garvey has recently said well on this site, explicitly theological in their purpose.

Great. So here, it will be very helpful to be an equal opportunity corrective, that looks to find a better way for everyone, not just correct one sides mistakes. Our goal also is not merely to be critics, but to also invite people into something better. So build something better with all of us to invite them into.

@Eddie

My own field being religion and theology (though I started out on a science scholarship), I’m naturally enough more focused on the position which makes theological claims.

I see why you have fixated on BioLogos for this reason, but remember there are both stated and unstated theological claims. ID has a large number of usually unstated theological presuppositions. Many of them are made clear in the Crossway book. They deserve as much scrutiny as you have given to BioLogos.

Moreover, you will have more credibility to fix them in ID than in BioLogos, because you are from “within” their camp and this is your area. In contrast, I’m always going to have more credibility to challenge TE/EC, because I was once closely associated with them. Certainly take BioLogos to task at times, but keep in mind where and how you will have the most impact.

@Eddie

That said, ID could also stand in need of improvement. One of the biggest defects in ID, from my point of view … is its inconsistent self-representation.
…
Its formal definition I have no problem with: it seeks to investigate the evidence for design in nature.
…
Yet often the rhetoric in some (not all) ID writers is anti-evolutionary, as if ID is intrinsically opposed to evolution. So I think the public gets confused: are these ID guys anti-evolution, or not?

This critique is point on. It is also entirely within their ability to correct. As much as you point out that ID has been misunderstood, we need to equally insist that ID has not represented itself consistently.

@Eddie

Another place where improvement could be made:… Crossway book gives a good sample of part of ID, it doesn’t give a sample of all of ID… [It] really represents OEC-ID and YEC-ID, completely leaving out evolutionist-ID.

I agree. So help us on that front in helping ID proponents coming here arguing against common descent realize they are undermining the goals of ID. That would be really helpful. Even helping them realize the Behe affirms common descent is helpful.

Though I also have to insist that modern evolutionary science is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. (that is a side point though).

@Eddie

In their bending over backwards to oppose what they see as the errors of liberal evangelicalism (at BioLogos), they tend toward the opposite error, i.e., that of mechanical fundamentalism. The pendulum swings too far.

On that, the best critique is a better option. Help us build a better articulated middle, wise, and informed ground. In building that middle ground, push equally hard against both points of view, but push hardest for what you think is the most constructive way forward.

@Eddie

There is also from time to time a sort of edgy, crusading tone in the Crossway book. I don’t say all the writers employ this tone, but two or three of them do.

I’d say you’ve been accused of that same edgy and crusading tone. I think it is often because you have been ignored. I’m giving you a voice here. Let’s do something constructive instead.

@Eddie

So my recommendation to some ID writers would be to turn down the volume a bit, watch the tone a bit more. I think that on both sides there is a sense of hurt and betrayal, but trick is to try to find some constructive common ground.

I could not agree more Eddie. This needs to be emblazoned somewhere, and repeated everywhere. Could this become the drum you are beating over and over? I really hope so…

@Eddie

I try to keep my theological critiques of these people on the subject-matter (texts, historical confessions, etc.) and not on the subject of their motives. If I occasionally fail, I don’t mind people pointing out to me where I have slipped from theological critique into charges of bad motives.

That is legitimate. One more thing that will really help is if you back off from critiquing TE/EC/BioLogos as a whole. That critique turns out to be a fulfilling prophecy, failing to affirm positive directions, and being overly vague.

Instead, let me suggest identifying concrete examples by specific people, identifying those examples and people, when you critique them. This is still in keeping with engaging ideas, not ad hominems. However, it gives space for people doing favorable things (in your view) to be part of BioLogos too, and to clearly identify the specific concerns and critiques you have. That also clarifies who exactly is meant to answer to you, and what specific statements are at play.

Speaking as a past associate of BioLogos, it was often frustrating to hear critiques of “BioLogos” that did not at all apply to me. The strategy I’m suggesting here would have avoided that frustration. I would have been able to better understand you, and even become an ally. The best scenario for everyone is not for BioLogos to fall apart, but to come to a better place. For that to happen would require a large number of allies, like I could have been, within BioLogos working for the good of BioLogos. That means we have to communicate in a way that builds understanding of what is and is not a way that will make sense to the church, recognizing there is real diversity in that organization too.

@Eddie

I would like to see the emergence of a theological position which

( a ) is open to evolution understood as descent with modification, but also open to various widely-differing accounts of evolutionary mechanisms, i.e., non-dogmatic regarding mechanism;

( b ) non-mechanical in its reading of Biblical texts, paying proper attention to their literary character and the difference between the ancient religious mind and the modern secular mind;

( c ) Christian in the sense not merely of Biblical but in the sense of informed by two millennia of deep theological reflection upon notions such as creation, sovereignty, providence, nature, image of God, etc.

You are describing precisely what we are building here. It is already emerging. This is what you have been looking for, and it is poised to grow much more. Once again @Eddie, I am inviting you in from the cold. Come here to build with us. You need not any longer be the ignored prophet in the wilderness. The last bit of my Crossway review is targeted to scholars exactly like you:

@swamidass

S. Joshua @Swamidass: Still, this book leaves me with a burning question. As a scientist in the church and a Christian in science, I see firsthand the strength of evolutionary science. What version of theistic evolution could be theologically sound? This question, I hope, can be received with empathy by a new generation of theologians. Help us find a better way.