Mallinson: An LCMS Lutheran Review of the GAE

[Jonathan_Burke]

@J.E.S

However, I do think that God’s word indicates that he didn’t use Evolutionary processes to shape life forms on Earth.

And Galileo’s opponents thought God’s word indicates that the sun orbits the earth. As always, we return to the question of how you can determine whether or not you are interpreting the Bible correctly.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EvolvingLutheran

However, I put a slightly different spin on it. I like CLAES: Confessional Lutheran Affirming Evolutionary Science.

I like it.

@EvolvingLutheran

Perhaps he recognizes the possibility that there may be more people present who affirm evolutionary science in the room.

Do you think he would read my book? What would he think of it? What would he think of Mallinson’s review?

[EvolvingLutheran]

Quite possibly he would. At the very least, the review makes it intriguing and worth considering. It definitely helps smooth the way, especially how Mallinson describes your approach to the subject with empathy, grace, and an invitation to explore the possibility. As to exactly what he’d think, I’m can’t be sure but I think him curious and thoughtful enough to listen.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

How about forwarding it to him and let us know.

[DaleCutler]

Being a heathen is not heresy.

[EvolvingLutheran]

That’s the plan.

[DaleCutler]

Other things could be added to the list, like the solar system being geocentric and the earth being stationary.

[T_aquaticus]

Am I the only one who became confused for a few seconds trying to figure out what liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry had to do with Lutheranism?

[T_aquaticus]

@J.E.S

If your arguments rest on placing the burden on me to show that evolution and Scripture contradict each other, then I don’t think your arguments will get very far (as I don’t think it is that difficult to prove that evolution contradicts Scripture, in case that wasn’t self-evident).

It still amazes me that well meaning Christians would adopt a position that demolishes the credibility of the Bible. If the credibility of the Bible rests on 150 years of well supported science being wrong, then the credibility of the Bible is going to lose, and badly.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Well intentioned post @T_aquaticus, but that is “how not to persuade” some one like @J.E.S.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

but that is “how not to persuade” some one like @J.E.S.

Perhaps you are right, but there are times when it is difficult to mince words. BioLogos may have the soft touch that I lack at the moment:

The recent Barna report about Gen Z (those born 1999 or after) revealed that just about half (49%) concur that “the church seems to reject much of what science tells us about the world.” And lest we think this is about outsiders—in this survey, this statement was the highest negative perception of congregations for churchgoing teens. How much more the case outside the church! For those who are reared in a world of science and technology, this is one obvious argument against belief in the message the church proclaims: “They don’t know science or technology, and both tell me so much about this world and about me. Why should I listen to the church if it disregards science and technology?”
Apologetics needs a “System Upgrade” for Emerging Adults - BioLogos

[J.E.S (Jonathan)]

@T_aquaticus

It still amazes me that well meaning Christians would adopt a position that demolishes the credibility of the Bible. If the credibility of the Bible rests on 150 years of well supported science being wrong, then the credibility of the Bible is going to lose, and badly.

Ultimately, I don’t believe that the Bible depends on science for its credibility.

[T_aquaticus]

@J.E.S

Ultimately, I don’t believe that the Bible depends on science for its credibility

Then how do you handle situations where your views of the Bible say one thing and mountains of scientific evidence say another?

I also can’t help but echo the sentiments of Dr. Francis Collins:

Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?
–Dr. Francis Collins, “Faith and the Human Genome”
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/p142_53FCollins.pdf

[Robert]

Or if you want some with a higher reputation in Christian circles, Augustine recognised that the principle that empirical observation trumps biblical interpretation.

[Jonathan_Burke]

There are so many articles like this.

For those who are reared in a world of science and technology, this is one obvious argument against belief in the message the church proclaims: “Why should I listen to the church if it disregards science and technology?” Apologetics needs a “System Upgrade” for Emerging Adults - Articles - BioLogos

And yet there are still Christians, even on this forum, who cannot accept Christian responsibility for the decline of Christianity in the US.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@J.E.S

Ultimately, I don’t believe that the Bible depends on science for its credibility.

Then why all of the apologetics?

[Argon]

@T_aquaticus

Am I the only one who became confused for a few seconds trying to figure out what liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry had to do with Lutheranism?

If LCMS results contradict the Bible, it’s a problem for LCMS?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

Ultimately, I don’t believe that the Bible depends on science for its credibility.

Then why all of the apologetics?

Lutherans tend to be skeptical apologetics.