William Lane Craig: Predetermined Conclusions on Adam?

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass

I’ve asked him about this. WLC has not been asked to sign the belief statement, nor does he agree with it. He has stated in the past he has no problem with a refurbishment model, where Adam shares common ancestry with apes. WLC would gladly disagree with the Biola statement, and Biola would look the other way. WLC is much bigger than Biola.

IOW, WLC is intellectually dishonest on this subject. He remains a member of an institution that requires he accept certain beliefs that he does not accept, and simply uses the fact that he is too big for them to fire to get around this.

What about the students or faculty who aren’t “too big” and therefore have to suppress their own beliefs?

EDIT: “Beliefs” is the wrong word in that last statement. I should rather have written “…and therefore have to suppress the fact that the understand and accept the plain facts regarding human origins?”

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

I don’t know if it’s been brought up in this thread yet, but WLC has actually written about doctrinal statements at Christian academic institutions in one of his Q&As:

Are Institutional Doctrinal Statements Counter-Productive? | Reasonable Faith

@Faizal_Ali

He remains a member of an institution that requires he accept certain beliefs that he does not accept

If they haven’t asked him to sign the statement as @swamidass says, then they haven’t required him to accept anything he does not believe.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Faizal_Ali

IOW, WLC is intellectually dishonest on this subject. He remains a member of an institution that requires he accept certain beliefs that he does not accept, and simply uses the fact that he is too big for them to fire to get around this.

I understand that it could be odd, disturbing, or unfair, but how is that intellectually dishonest? Craig has always been open about his beliefs as his materials are everywhere.

[Faizal_Ali]

@structureoftruth

I don’t know if it’s been brought up in this thread yet, but WLC has actually written about doctrinal statements at Christian academic institutions in one of his Q&As:

That actually supports my position. WLC makes no mention of Talbot’s position on evolution and human origins, even though the questioner specifically mentions those issues (though not in relation to Craig and Talbot). But what does Craig say a person should do if he finds his positions are not in line with an institution’s Doctrinal Statement?

Because a mere doctrinal statement has so little influence on what a professor believes, it can happen that one’s doctrinal views can change in the course of one’s career, with the result that one can no longer sign the doctrinal statement in good faith. In that case, the professor should seek employment elsewhere. The danger is that because such a move can be so gut-wrenching, the professor may be tempted to continue in his present position, even though he no longer believes the doctrinal statement. In that case, he compromises his own integrity and the integrity of the institution. If the institution does not take the difficult step of dismissing him, the seed of corruption is planted which may derail the institution in coming generations.

Hmm…

@dga471

I understand that it could be odd, disturbing, or unfair, but how is that intellectually dishonest? Craig has always been open about his beliefs as his materials are everywhere.

Does the above clarify things for you?

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Faizal_Ali

Does the above clarify things for you?

Not really. You seem to not be reading the article carefully? It’s likely that Craig’s beliefs have been clear from the beginning, and Biola hired him with full knowledge of that. As he said,

Moreover, at Talbot, where I also teach, a professor is allowed to attach a codicil to the doctrinal statement when he signs it, indicating where he has disagreements with certain details of the statement (e.g., misgivings about dispensational biblical interpretation). So doing enables one to sign the statement without mental reservation.

It’s likely here that Craig has maintained such a codicil since the beginning (whether it’s a formal document or an informal conversation), describing his disagreements with the belief statement. Or Biola approached him first knowing of his beliefs. Craig’s point in the article is that if the initial doctrinal positions that the professor had when s/he was hired changed, then they should be open about it and resign if they need to. This is likely not the case for Craig.