Theologians for Darwin; or Darwinian theology

One of the main reasons darwin's theory of evolution had such a rapid ride to prominence is that it was blessed by the liberal theologians of the day; and has been ever since. Since these were the men who ran and populated the seminaries and taught the aspiring pastors it's little wonder the theory received almost no opposition from these circles or from the church in general. The opposition to Darwinism has largely been one that's come from the laity. I've assembled some typical quotes from some liberal theologians of the past. (Taken from the essay 'Worshipping the creature rather than the creator' by Greg Bahnsen)

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The church was warned against resisting Darwinism: "To call Himself reasonably well educated and informed, a Christian can hardly afford not to believe in evolution.... And to announce that you do not believe in evolution is as irrational as to announce that you do not believe in electricity." - Stanley Beck

- To compare a theory of biological origins with electricity is shockingly stupid. These two 'things' aren't even remotely in the same category. (You'd think even a theologian would know better; but perhaps he had his finger in a socket when he uttered this blast.)

B. 'Christian philosophers of religion like John Hick now proclaim that creationism "can no longer be regarded as a reasonable belief." [121]

- Yes; it's more reasonable to imagine living organisms magically emerged from the rocks (apparently on a mission to save the universe for materialists and atheists). It's more 'reasonable' to imagine the universe popped into existence out of nothing and with no cause (sort of like a hated relative showing up without invitation or warning). It's more reasonable to imagine pond slime climbed a ladder of complexity by suffering thousands of damaging mutations. It's more reasonable to imagine the personal came from the impersonal. It's more reasonable to imagine the intelligent came (magically, mystically) from the non-intelligent. Yes; I see it now... Darwinism is the epitome of reasonableness. (Did Hicks have a clue what he was talking about? If he did he was a rarity among our evolution trumpeting theologians.)

C. 'Emil Brunner grants science a privileged position of safety, saying, "We have to stress the fact that modern science (and this means the theory of Evolution) ought not to be opposed in the name of religion."[122]

- If Brunner was supposed to be a christian theologian why is he talking about religion? Religion in general isn't opposed to evolution at all. It's only biblical 'religion' that is opposed to evolution. (In fact evolution is a religion for many.) I'm sure Brunner was another expert in biology. He surely wouldn't talk about something he knew nothing about would he? I'm sure no responsible clerical personage would do that.

D. 'Indeed, Ronald Hepburn says, "It is of only secondary interest whether the world had a literal beginning, a first moment."[126] Supposedly the first text of God's inspired word is irrelevant to what follows!'

- You see, the bible isn't about the real world at all... it's more like talking about fairies and elves.
- It's only a short skip and a jump from claiming it doesn't matter if the world had a beginning to claiming it doesn't matter if it had a creator. I mean if it's all some kind of mystical history happening on some other level of reality why does it matter... and why does anything matter. But please; let's not embarrass our clergyoids by talking about horrible, messy and smelly things like creation. Please. Not in church. Church is a place we give talks on the spiritual meaning of the Heisenberg principle and the political implications of quantum theory... we don't talk about creation. Goodness, how could we get any of the important people to attend if we did that... why they might be insulted... they might think they'd stumbled through some doorway in space and tumbled into the bible belt.

E. "In so far as the theologian and evolutionist differ in their interpretation of the history of life... I agree with the evolutionist." - Lyman Abbott [131]

- of course what Abbott [1897] knew about biology could be found dangling at the end of his nose on a cold morning. He made the classic liberal mistake of assuming the 'knowledge' of his day equaled the truth. Biologists of his day didn't know squat.

F. 'But by far the greatest capitulation to evolutionary speculation is expressed in the contemporary move to draw God into the developmental process. Canon Charles Kingsley maintained that Darwin allowed theologians to get "rid of an interfering God - a master-magician, as I call it," in favor of an "immanent, ever-working God."

- What liberals hate is a God who won't agree to letting man be autonomous and ultimate; that's his crime... and for this crime he must be replaced with the dumbed down version approved of by Charles Darwin and the u.s. courts. Their hatred of and contempt for the triune God is obvious in all they write. They can barely write a paragraph without sneering and snorting over this or that abomination found in the bible.

G. 'Beckner correctly commented:
"The final step in this direction was to give God an even more intimate metaphysical connection with natural process. This step had been taken by previous philosophers - Spinoza and Hegel, for example; but it was repeated under the aegis of Darwinism by Bergson, Whitehead, and a number of Protestant thinkers. [141]

- The net result of Darwinian cosmology is process theology. (We might as well call it darwinian theology; perhaps in honor of that most holy day of liberalism 'Darwin Day'.) Process theology is hot man; it rocks... it's like U2 baby. The whole point of process theology is to make the word of God of no effect... and to replace it with the word of man. (Surely no one would disagree that Bono knows more about what's going on in our world than some dead guys from Palestine. Right.)

H. 'Spinoza's pantheism came to expression in [Samuel] Alexander's view that deity is "the next highest emergent quality which the universe is engaged in bringing to birth." "As actual, God does not possess the quality of deity but is the universe as tending to that quality."[143] Thus, Alexander formulated the idea of the universe as "God's body" and believed in an evolving deity.'

- Here's how it works; first the universe came from nothing; then life came from inert matter; then man came from living protoplasm; then finally, god evolved from man (or at least after man.) It's obvious isn't it?
- I guess this means that liberal theology is doing the work of a mid wife in helping this evolving god finally emerge into true existence. (Wow. That sounds like hard and dangerous work. Imagine being brave enough to help god himself be born. I think these guys deserve a raise.)

Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the creator - Greg Bahnsen [reference 120]
- all the quotes are from the essay; check the bibliography for the number references.