Eddie's Response to Review of Crossway TE

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jongarvey

A review of the review (by @eddie) to add to the mix: The Crossway Theistic Evolution Book: A Response to Joshua Swamidass

To summarize the four points @eddie makes, which I think are all largely correct, look at this list. Articulated this way, I would agree with them entirely:

1. This only represents part of ID, some in the ID movement are theistic evolutionists too. One of the most prominent examples is Michael Behe.

2. Most EC/TE probably do reject a non-interventionist view of evolution, however many of the visible leaders over the years have not always done so.

3. We ought to leave open the possibility of legitimate natural theology, a theology that legitimizes detecting divine design in nature in some way, even if it scientifically bounded. Opposition to the scientific arguments for design, should not metastasize into a general “no” to natural theology outside of science.

4. Is there a theistic evolution that could be theologically sound? Yes. There are various ways to do this. You point to The Hump and Peaceful Science as hopeful places where this is growing.

I like @eddies explication of a better way here. I think this really is a good way forward.

@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.

---

A couple pushbacks @eddie.

1. You offer Behe as an example of a theologically sound evolutionist. Behe is even more silent on theology than Francis Collins. He is a secular voice, even if he personally has a vibrant faith. No one can assess his theological soundness. He has stayed away from theology entirely, and might be entirely incoherent for all we know. How could any of us possibly know that? The only virtue (relevant to you) he has is that he is part of the ID movement. That alone is not a valid way of defining theologically-soundness.

2. Pascal, Newman, and Barth are important to theology too, and their voices are worth reflection and recovery now too. There are also Lutheran voices too, that might legitimately balance against your position (@Philosurfer). I am willing to grant there needs to be a careful rebalancing of our view (even my view) of natural theology. Rather than delegitimizing these important voices, or using them as a trump card against natural theology, I want to bring their insights into dialogue with one another. That may not have been possible in the past. It is now. Let’s give that a try first.

3. As I’ve mentioned before, I think the real solution is not dual-trained scientist-theologians, but legitimate dialogue with genuine engagement and cross-disciplinary engagement and education. There will never be more than a couple idiosyncratic few that are dual trained. However, an interdisciplinary conversation can include any scientist/scholar ready to engage with humility. That is why, for example, I think these digital dialogues are so important. They increase the pace and depth of these interactions, while at the same time decreasing the friction and barriers to entry.

@Eddie, it seems we have immense common ground. I’m glad you are here now too. It seems we might be able build something positive here. Looking forward to seeing what this becomes.