Somewhere in the far corner of a world, there is a "controversy" stirring about a seminary professor's resignation due to his (positive) views on evolution [1]. That is an interesting piece of news; what is more interesting, however, is the reaction. Consider this opinion piece posted on a blog [2], who claims that theistic evolution (i.e. God-guided evolution) is a "hermeneutical trojan horse":
The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword.
That's a valid point about a slippery slope, and the author of the blog post also asks "What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection?"
Another good point.
But that is only if someone assumes naturalism (by this I mean natural and not supernatural explanations of the world take priority, if not being the only possible explanation) from the outset. Assuming that the professor who resigned believes in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it is clear he does not hold to that belief.
From history we know that what was once ascribed a supernatural explanation is now no longer, although a Peretti enthusiast might object if a psychiatrist were to ascribe a mental illness to natural causes, and not demons.
I do not wish to compare the church's treatment of evolution to, say, geocentrism. (We do not have 400 years behind us to make that judgement - yet) Biblical interpretation does take importance if you believe in such things as inerrancy. If you do, but you also believe that evolution is solid science, then I suppose you ought to begin some reconciliation processes.
The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword.
That's a valid point about a slippery slope, and the author of the blog post also asks "What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection?"
Another good point.
But that is only if someone assumes naturalism (by this I mean natural and not supernatural explanations of the world take priority, if not being the only possible explanation) from the outset. Assuming that the professor who resigned believes in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it is clear he does not hold to that belief.
From history we know that what was once ascribed a supernatural explanation is now no longer, although a Peretti enthusiast might object if a psychiatrist were to ascribe a mental illness to natural causes, and not demons.
I do not wish to compare the church's treatment of evolution to, say, geocentrism. (We do not have 400 years behind us to make that judgement - yet) Biblical interpretation does take importance if you believe in such things as inerrancy. If you do, but you also believe that evolution is solid science, then I suppose you ought to begin some reconciliation processes.
