At the ASA meeting there was open discussion about these different views and perspectives within the ASA. It is certainly frustrating to all sides that there are such divergent views within our community. Each of us wishes that we could settle the debate and move on, and the world outside must think we’re silly. But the ASA is the only place where such divergent views are debated with all seriousness and a high level of Christian humility and grace. For that I am thankful. Paul Seely and Dick Fisher were both at the meeting and presented their perspectives. There was also an entire session devoted to myths and common ground about and between ID and TE camps. Loren Haarsma has done the most honest and thorough job of defining and evaluating common ground and key differences between these perspectives.

Doug

Paul Seely’s article in PSCF touches on some points that are of interest to me. I try not to be an extremist on any viewpoint, and find that the middle ground is typically the better foundation, however the dual revelation approach of RTB is by far the most solid foundation I have found. It is in turn founded on reasonable concordism and reasonable inerrancy/infallibility. Those two terms are not the same – if you’re still trying to define them well, suggest you look at Stroebel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus”. In there he is discussing inerrancy with Daniel Wallace. As excellent resource.

But back to Ross, and Seely’s article. I think the Bible and nature should agree. They are both written by God. You apparently do not agree, if you are not a concordist. I have read Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, and find it lacking in a satisfying explanation of a departure from concordism.

However, that being said, I do think that Seely has some valid points. One of the main divergences that I do have with RTB is their stance on the timeline in Genesis. I think that the concordist position would be strengthened by taking a different approach…one that is more concordant with what science, history and the archaeological record have told us about the origins of early man in Sumeria/Mesopotamia. In this, I tend to agree with Dick Fisher (ASA member) in his book “The Historical Genesis”. As a matter of fact, I have written a paper of sorts (draft, not published) that delineates what I think. It is in esssence a “two Adam” approach to Genesis, in that the first Adam was the first man, and the second Adam in Gen 2 was the first Hebrew.
You’re welcome to read it if you like:
http://www.byrdbiblestudy.net/Timeline_of_Man-rev031309.doc
Regards,
James Patterson

I highly recommend the Enns book. It is probably not one that is appropriate for every small group (eg. doubt it would work well for my own group at my church) … but it is probably guaranteed to generate good discussion.