Why accomodationism won't work

[laconicsax]

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/why-accommodationism-wont-work-biologosfails-to-convince-a-southern-baptist-bigwig/ [div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.3077em 0.3077em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]Why accommodationism won’t work: BioLogos fails to convince a Southern Baptist bigwig[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3077em 0.3077em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]As I’ve said many times before, accommodationism faces a rocky road when trying to convince believers that evolution is true. In the case of evangelical Christians, for instance, the BioLogos prescription is nothing less than a request that believers change their faith, taking the Bible, which many think is the inerrant word of God, as largely metaphorical. Sometimes, I think, accommodationists don’t realize how hard it would be for people to make that change.

This difficulty is instantiated in a two-part post at BioLogos by Kenneth Keathley, a professor of theology and administrator at Southesastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, “Southern Baptist voices: Expressing our concerns” (part one is here; part two here).

Keathley’s piece is the first in a number of responses that BioLogos has commissioned from Southern Baptists, with the goal, as BioLogos President Darrel Falk says, of engaging “in charitable dialogue with those who disagree with us in a new direction. . .”. Falk ends his introduction this way:

We hope and pray that this dialogue will bring greater clarity to the issues at hand, charity towards those with whom we disagree, and glory to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen. Well, it may bring clarity, but probably not agreement, at least judging by Keithley’s two pieces. If those essays show anything, it’s that the gap between evolution and Keithley’s brand of faith cannot be bridged. And that’s a lot of opposition, for, with 18 million adherents, Southern Baptism is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.

Keathley’s plaint is that BioLogos doesn’t take scripture seriously enough. It's worth reading the rest: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/why-accommodationism-wont-work-biologosfails-to-convince-a-southern-baptist-bigwig/

[Silent3]

1. There's only one way I can think of accomodationism working.

It's a rare thing when any argument of any sort ever changes the mind of a person heavily invested in a particular point of view, at least in an profound and immediate way. Accomodationism is hardly alone in the kinds of difficulties of persuasion illustrated in the quoted article.

The fact there there are accomodationist arguments out there in the world of ideas, however, might help someone who is starting to grow uncomfortable with Biblical literalism feel more comfortable with that change, help make it easier to accept the science of evolution.

For myself, I won't be one of the people making accomodationist arguments. I don't want to personally engage in watering down the science that much.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

2. That didn't make the case at all for confrontationism.

All it does is show that accomodationism will not get religious people to stop being religious. While he successfully attacks the rival position, Dr. Coyne fails to show how his position of confrontationism will get people to reject religious beliefs. From what he showed, it seems that no strategy will ever get these people to listen to science; "reject your beliefs in favor of science" stands no better chance that "attempt to reconcile your beliefs with science."

While that Southern Baptist gentleman's arguments were surprisingly intellectually robust and logically coherent (for a creationist,) there is no argument one can make or evidence one can present that could make him reject the Bible. It doesn't matter how "nice" or otherwise you are, you will never make any headway with that kind of individual. I think the best Dr. Coyne can say for his position is, "Censoring or limiting myself in that way isn't going to do jack shit, so I'm just going to say what I honestly think."

[laconicsax]

3. That wasn't the point.

Coyne and others have been very vocal in their opposition to accomodationism for the basic reason that it dilutes the science in the vain hopes of getting anti-science religionists (creationists, et al) to endorse reality.

The point of the article, rather than making a case for confrontationism, is to further make the case against accomodationism.