I have a few more books to read for reviews, but once I am done, I will start with Peter Enns book on inspiration….
The poll reveals that one’s thoughts on evolution depend on “the nature and extent of religious belief,” as Coyne laments. I agree, the two are most definitely connected. Coyne also argues against “the accommodationist technique … to accept that people are religious but to convince them that evolution really doesn’t violate their faith.” I agree that simply tacking evolution onto Christian faith minimizes the theological challenges. For many Christians, that theological challenge has involved a thoughtful re-examination of assumptions about the Bible.
While I generally like Enns, he has been called on the carpet by other bloggers for his separation of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. While he has a great article, I find it a little dismaying that he assumes only the ‘theologically aware Christians’ are fully aware of ongoing discussions on evolution, theistic or otherwise. Perhaps I am just being picky on a Monday morning, but plenty of Christians dismiss anything but an extremely literal, extra-context, reading of Genesis 1. I wouldn’t call them theologically unaware. He does go on to dismiss much of the way the questions were asked, and I completely agree with him.
I believe that the Scriptures is the Word of God, but not all of it is to be taken literally. (For those who want to disagree, here is a little exercise – read Job and the Book of Revelation. If you think that everything in the former is true and godly, you haven’t read the book. If you think that everything in the latter is literal, you haven’t read the book). Anyway, read the article, here: