Biologos has posted a large number of videos, including videos from folks who are not, to my knowledge, traditionally associated with the anti-Creationist movement.
For example, Biologos Youtube channel has the following videos from Os Guinness:
1. Os Guinness: No Fear
2. Os Guinness on Science, Faith and the Culture War
3. Os Guinness on Reading Scripture Faithfully
4. Os Guinness on Why the Church Should Engage in Scientific Discourse
5. Os Guinness on Evolution and the Atheist Worldview
If you listen carefully, you will see a lot of themes that appear to point to Os Guinness promoting the error of theistic evolution. However, he never really comes out and says it. His comments are the sort of things which tend to come out of the mouths of theistic evolutionists, but he never actually (that I could find) endorses the theistic evolutionist position.
He even goes so far in his "No Fear" video to cast "shame on those who are perpetuating this miserable polarisation" between "faith and science." Despite this stern warning, Os Guinness does not identify what constitutes such polarisation, leaving the reader to guess.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't know what Os' position is on this topic, but I've heard an anti-evolutionist apologist refer to him as "functionally atheist" before, allegedly for believing in theistic evolution. I wasn't able to find any further information, unfortunately.
If Os Guiness has convictions about this matter, he should state them forthrightly.
If he has no convictions on the matter, then he should state that he has no convictions on the matter in a forthright manner.
"Truth", it looks like Os has stated his convictions forthrightly. It looks like he's deeply convicted that perpetuating a polarization between faith and science is "miserable".
I suspect that what you want him to do is to clearly state his position on YOUR conviction, not his. That is a reasonable request on your part for someone interacting with you personally, but not for a public speaker who is making a different point. It's a little more useless to demand that he do that when his actual intended point contradicts any desire to make that an issue.
(Please keep in mind that I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for you to ask this; I'm saying that it's useless, and that you would be incorrect to say that he's somehow immoral to not state his position on a specific issue.)
I'm not sure it is clear who Os thinks is polarizing, how they are polarizing, or why it is miserable.
Did I miss something in the videos? or is it simply not clearly stated?
I doubt I'll take the time to watch them; I don't usually bother with videos.
But I have to assume he's being as precise as the topic requires and as the titles of his talks state, which leads me to conclude that we're talking about Christians who oppose scientific claims because they see them as leading to theologically incompatible conclusions. Like yourself, I can see that he's talking about anti-evolutionism, but (I suspect unlike yourself) I also know he's talking about geocentricism, since my grandfather (a PhD physical chemist) only escaped from that a couple of years ago. There have been a number of false ideas which in their time were promoted as being Biblical.
Finally, you ask why he thinks the polarization is "miserable". I would think you would agree that the polarization is miserable -- at least when the polarization is being conducted by shrills like Dawkins. Oh, and I would also add some but not all of the writers for BioLogos to the problem list -- dismissing the authority of the Bible is necessarily schismatic, and schism is the most "miserable" polarization.
I know I'm preaching to the choir there... But let me add that I now believe evolution is perfectly plausible scientifically, so that it's clear that I'm not merely tickling itching ears. What evolution lacks primarily is Biblical allowance for the long ages it requires. (The changing from one "kind" to another is a particularly small objection in comparison, since reconciling it would require only interpreting a single repeated phrase, so I put it as secondary.)
For the above reason, I am deeply impressed by the work of scientists like Todd Wood in attempting to establish a solid model to fit the scientific evidence to a faithful Biblical model, and by the work of Bible scholars like Carol Hill who attempt to explain why the Bible includes so many statements which would so clearly have been understood by the people in societies around the author in ways that would be scientifically incorrect, and how we can read them to respect both the Bible as authoritative and science as reasonable conclusion from evidence.
-Wm
"But I have to assume he's being as precise as the topic requires "
Why do you have to assume that?
-TurretinFan
Why do I assume that? Because the FIRST rule of interpreting a text is to assume the author is attempting to communicate rather than obfuscate. I find the titles more than adequate for clarity.
It may well be that Os is attempting to communicate a coded message; but that shouldn't be our first assumption.
Anyhow, all of your questions have been on the theme "have you missed something, or is it simply not clearly stated?" My answer has been that you seem to be missing his message, and you're expecting him to point to guilty people (I guess?) when he's actually engaged in defining a principle.
-Wm
I couldn't help noticing that wtanksley has chastised both TUaD and TF for allegedly misattributing intentions to Mr. Guinness' message, even though, according to his own testimony, he:
i.) hasn't viewed the videos
ii.) is therefore drawing his own conclusions about the matter from the video titles
iii.) begins in this thread by claiming that doesn't know what Os' position is on this topic
Does this type of behavior strike anyone else as a bit odd?
In Christ,
CD
"Why do I assume that? Because the FIRST rule of interpreting a text is to assume the author is attempting to communicate rather than obfuscate. I find the titles more than adequate for clarity."
Perhaps the first rule of interpreting the text is actually to read the text, something you haven't done in this case.
That said, while we might assume the author is trying to communicate, when the author leaves things out, we can rebut that assumption.
Moreover, you're not just assuming that he tried to communicate, but that he also succeeded.
Furthermore, your statement was not that he was precise "as the author requires" but "as the topic requires." That statement suggests an extrinsic reference point - not what the author wanted to communicate, but what the author was supposed to communicate.
"It may well be that Os is attempting to communicate a coded message; but that shouldn't be our first assumption."
I didn't take that position.
"Anyhow, all of your questions have been on the theme 'have you missed something, or is it simply not clearly stated?'"
OK
"My answer has been that you seem to be missing his message, and you're expecting him to point to guilty people (I guess?) when he's actually engaged in defining a principle."
Given that you haven't watched the videos, you probably shouldn't be telling us what he's actually engaged in.
-TurretinFan
Coram, I haven't chastised anyone, or at least that wasn't my intent. Other than that, I agree with your characterization of my posts, but don't know why you would find it odd.
Here's a direct statement: I'm trying to answer the questions whose answers seem perfectly obvious to me, and point out that some of the questions seem irrelevant for the circumstances. (I've also directly stated that the questions are reasonable, and should be answered if asked directly, but that's not possible here.)
Were you to call me "lazy" I'd admit SOME fault, but ask what's wrong with that :-). I'm not claiming expertise; I'm simply saying I see a plain meaning, and nobody here has contradicted me.
Turretinfan, I have read exactly the text I claimed to: the titles of the video and the questions you asked (including the quote you gave). None of this seems to require deep knowledge of the videos; the answers to your questions appear to be superficially evident.
Since all of you profess total ignorance of Os' message, I would expect that you'd treat my statement of his alleged message as information (not infallible information, of course) rather than as a contradiction or rebuke. Since you're actually treating it as a contradiction without explaining WHY, I have to suspect that you're all trying to say something OTHER than that you don't understand Os, and THAT is what I'm accidentally contradicting. I don't know what it is that you actually want to say, since none of you are giving any hints aside from rejecting my interpretations. I'm not going to try to parse further -- feel free to elaborate or not.
If I truly can't answer from the titles (unlike all your previous questions), I'll admit it to you and take the time to watch the videos. Which I have no problem admitting will reveal more information to me. But I would like to start with some clear idea of what I'm looking for.
-Wm
WT:
I see no point to further discussion with you about this. Perhaps about something else, but not this. I've said my piece, and unless you feel I owe you some more explanation, I'll just leave it at that.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment