You can find the documentary in 6 parts on Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJkJUUs8O4&playnext=1&list=PLEE8E69EE2B5C9985

It should play the next ones automatically, but if not the links to the other parts are on the right.

Enjoy!

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the clarification of what you’re saying. If you have time, my next question is related to this discussion, but I can’t pursue the question without first asking how familiar you are with Borgmann, Grant or Ellul’s philosophy of technology. Have you read much from any of them? Do you have any familiarity with their theses?

For clarification, by questioning the value of labeling it ‘theistic evolution’ are you asserting that evolution is evolution and theistic versus atheistic evolution is not about evolution but cosmological inference/belief?

More or less. However, again, evolution is always going to be a matter of interpretation. It isn’t a ‘bare’ fact. Again, whose evolution? If it’s Stephen J. Gould’s evolution, it is completely, totally random. If it’s Dawkin’s/Dennett’s, it’s probably something very deterministic. If it’s Simon Conway Morris’, then there will be constraints through which convergences occur, so there is ‘randomness’ to a degree, but all operating within the structures/laws of nature. (For more on this see the ‘tape of life’ discussions in my supervisor’s forthcoming Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong.)

To get to the point, though, the issue I have with ‘theistic evolution’ is that you’re always trying to get two ‘things’ to fit. So then the discussion is always about theology ‘and’ science, religion ‘and’ evolution, etc. It’s always an attempt to see how these two things must somehow ‘fit’. In such an approach it seems as if one is conceding that they must not already ‘fit’. But moreover, the reason I reject this model is because it makes much more sense to subsume evolutionary science to metaphysics, and then metaphysics to theology so that theology becomes the primary conversation. So, I would say two things here: not only does Christian theology make better ‘sense’ of evolutionary science than other discourses, but also, I think evolution only makes sense at all because of the Incarnation.

Your section question:

it seems to me (and I may be completely wrong on this so feel free to correct me), you’re still believing in a system even if it is a bit more stable than the house of cards of fundamentalist creationism (your depiction of which I agree with and also reject for similar reasons). In your system you’ve replaced bad reasoning with reasoning more relevant to contemporary society and its worldview. Doesn’t this mean that encouraging the development of faith in yourself has to come more from other areas of belief and Christian practice than this one since this relies more on reasons and methodologies by external sources?

A couple of issues here. First, I wouldn’t label my belief here in a ‘system’. I despise systems. My belief is in the second person of the Trinity, the God-man, who calls into question all systems. There is an extreme kind of ‘openness’ here, and it’s both less stable than the Creationist vision in terms of modern epistemological assurances, but also more coherent in another sense (as in all of creation itself coinheres and exists in the Word: Colossians 1:15-20). It is precisely the Creationist view which is of utmost systematic logic.

Secondly, you say I’ve “replaced bad reasoning with reasoning more relevant to contemporary society and its worldview.” And you then say that there is still a kind of extrinsicism here. I disagree. Mainly because the whole issue of ‘contemporary society’ is again in question. Which society? Where I come from in the States it’s very much in vogue to be a Creationist, and even more so in other parts of the States. It’s not an issue of being relevant; it’s an issue of theological truth. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches never had a problem with Darwin — indeed, Darwin is even on the £10 note here in the UK! They just got on with it. They did so because these Churches tend to have theologies which do not at all rely on theological extrinsicism but instead test everything in discernment under Christ and the tradition of the Church. It’s only the recent, a-historical, utterly extrinsicist and ironic traditions-without-a-tradition that rely on “methodologies by external sources”. Just because one has faith in Jesus Christ and holds evolution to be true doesn’t necessarily imply at all that one relies on external methods; on the contrary it could mean (as I believe it does) that a belief in Jesus Christ entails a recognition that creation is good, all of creation has been redeemed, and indeed many of our created methods (i.e. evolutionary science) could very well be true, and are. Obviously discernment is always needed to point out that people like Dawkins and Dennett are trying to hijack the discussion for their own ends, but there are much better scientists and philosophers than them, atheist or otherwise.

Peace,

Eric

Thank you for responding. For clarification, by questioning the value of labeling it ‘theistic evolution’ are you asserting that evolution is evolution and theistic versus atheistic evolution is not about evolution but cosmological inference/belief?

For myself, I’ve usually been pretty apathetic to the whole debate because it is about Christ and not a system of belief that totters on insignificant minutiae. I once met an Engineering professor who was a Christian who claimed that when he came to Christ he decided he needed to believe in a more literal six-day Creation. He didn’t think he needed to believe in it because he suddenly thought evolution was wrong or because he was trying to build a faith system like a house of cards, rather he felt he needed to affirm that God was omnipotent enough to create the world in six days if He so chose. Also, he wanted to believe in it because he thought it would encourage greater faith in God. Evolution, at the point of his conversion, represented an old ‘god’ and old way of seeing that he felt he needed to put off with his ‘old man.’ He didn’t have any problems with other Christians believing differently or feel the need to sway people to his opinion. I thought his approach was pretty unique. Why not believe a doctrine because of how it can build you up in the faith?

Maybe to push the matter further, it seems to me (and I may be completely wrong on this so feel free to correct me), you’re still believing in a system even if it is a bit more stable than the house of cards of fundamentalist creationism (your depiction of which I agree with and also reject for similar reasons). In your system you’ve replaced bad reasoning with reasoning more relevant to contemporary society and its worldview. Doesn’t this mean that encouraging the development of faith in yourself has to come more from other areas of belief and Christian practice than this one since this relies more on reasons and methodologies by external sources?

Thanks. As to your first question, I confess it literally makes no sense to me: the same set of reasonings that say–nay, demand–that the creation account is six literal days is so intertwined in my mind (and in the minds of creationists who I learned from a long time ago) with also demanding that you read the bible as a science text book such that, following James Ussher, you calculate that the earth was created 4004 BC on a Tuesday (or whatever). Both such demands seem to assume that the Scriptures are not first a witness to the revelation of Christ but instead a kind of set of ‘data’ that is on the same epistemological par as a science report. [Full disclosure: I'm a former creationist who was trained in the ways of Kent Hovind but as may appear obvious I reject about 99% of his vision.]

Your second question raises a number of issues. The first is that I really don’t think the term ‘theistic evolution’ is very helpful, for a couple of reasons. The first is that it again assumes a kind of binary which needs to be in opposition to atheistic explanations of it (granted, I did use this term in my post), so that we then have ‘theistic evolution’ as its contrary. It’s like having ‘theistic sewing’ or ‘theistic pole vaulting’; in a lot of ways it just doesn’t make sense to pair the two, especially since the science of today is always changing. There’s a saying my supervisor likes to repeat: the theology that marries the science of today will be
the widow of tomorrow. What exactly is this evolution that is supposed to be ‘theistic’?

This brings me to another point on your section question: which type of evolution, let alone which ‘theistic’ kind of evolution? Many six-day literalists who also hold that the earth is 6000 years old are fine with what they call ‘micro-evolution’ verses some big bad boy (in their view) of ‘macro-evolution’. In other words this all needs clarification as to what exactly the ‘theism’ in question is, let alone what account of evolution (Dawkins, Gould, and Conway Morris all have pretty different accounts of evolution).

As for the ‘theological harm’, the biggest problem I have with the ‘creationist’ view (although despite the pejorative I clearly believe in creation) is that its modern assumptions are built upon such a shoddy house of cards. When I was a fundamentalist the way it was taught to me was that we had to get all the ‘fundamentals’ in line first (being a creationist, a dispensationalist, complete textual inerrancy, etc.) and anything else was cast in such a suspicious light that it would be either outright atheist, closet-atheist, or at the very least on the slippery slope to atheism. All knowledge was basically built upon a house of cards such that if anything was jostled a bit, let alone taken out, the whole thing would come crumbling down. In other words, the cornerstone of the faith was no longer Jesus Christ. In my experience, then, creationists not only pay zero attention to the Christian tradition before about 1925 (not to mention it’s basically 1960, really), but the whole thing therefore presumes that the issue itself is salvific. I’ve written on this blog before that the attitude of a Kent Hovind (and I used to follow him in this) was something akin to: one believes in Jesus Christ in order to believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days 6000 years ago on a Tuesday. Yes, it’s pithy, but I think it very much captures the total wrong-headedness about the issue. Jesus Christ is sent not for some other reason, but as Kierkegaard points out, he is both the teacher and the teaching. Christ is sent for the sick and the poor, for they are Christ. This is the lived reality of what it means to become a Christian; the fundamentalist creationist view is really only about the mental assent to some propositions that really don’t have anything to do with Christ at all.

Peace,

Eric