The Politics of Apologetics

Attached with this post is a fascinating You Tube video from Dr. John West from the Discovery Institute dealing with the initiative from the scientific community in dealing with religious expression centered around an accepting disposition towards Darwinian evolution.  As you view it, you note a trend that such religious expression is confined to liberal theologians that would agree with a theistic evolutionary process, declaring the compatibility of science and religion.  That is, if science has the final say on what is true religion.  Dr. West makes a statement that such contacts with liberal Christian denominations would be welcomed, but there would be warnings if the neighborhood would be defined as a religiously conservative bloc.  Then such a welcome to religious expression on evolution would be forbidden.

The hypocrisy is thick.  The listing of religious organizations that Dr. Eugenie Scott would promote might just as well double as a listing of the apostate church.

It is the nature of the viewing of areas of life as liberal and conservative that makes me wonder about the nature of the field of apologetics.  In the defense of the faith, is there a degree of liberalism and conservatism, and if so, to what degree does it hamper the study of this discipline?  I acknowledge that there are apologetes that embrace theistic evolution (William Lane Craig) and old earth creationism (Dr. Hugh Ross).  As a young earth creationist, I would disagree with these fine men on this issue.  But their understanding of the nature of Christ's ministry of substitutionary atonement is a basic area of agreement.  I laud Dr. Craig's efforts in debating (and decisively!) the panoply of the New Atheists.  I respect Dr. Ross' work in his field of science.  I would never hold a candle to them in their areas of expertise.  Still, I humbly consider the matter as the efficacy of macroevolution as ill-defined.  The Question Evolution Movement has cited fifteen hardcore questions that show that evolution has not, and possibly will never, explain the origin of life, sexuality, intriquate celluar structures, etc.  I hold to a simple line of argument.

Premise 1:  The origin of the universe is either explained by natural or supernatural causes.

Premise 2:  The naturalistic explanations have been found wanting, particularly in the light of discrediting possible supernatural agencies.

Conclusion:  The origin of the universe could plausibly be caused by supernatural agencies.

This could be as conservative a position as one can imagine.  Does this lead to a rupture between liberal and conservative apologetics.  No.  I value the classical apologetical approach of Dr. Craig, but I assume an evidential approach, even though by rights my Lutheranism would make me a fideist.  But I understand I could produce rationale for faith, based on evidence.  I find myself disagreeing with some of the points raised by apologists as Lane, Licona, and even McDowell (Josh and Sean).  But the essentials of the faith we defend are consistent.  The brilliancy of apologetics is a well-defined "agreement to disagree" on matters.  The code of all apolgetes is found in 1 Peter 3: 15 after all: 

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear. (WEB)

Now for Dr. West.  Watch and ponder.