Mere theism

The Ham/Nye debate exposed some fissures in Christian apologetics. Some critics resent the fact that, from their viewpoint, Ham created a false dichotomy between naturalistic evolution and young-earth creationism. Critics think that unfairly squeezes out old-earth creationism, theistic evolution, and/or intelligent design theory.

Mind you, I don't think they can really blame Ham. He issued the challenge and he hosted the debate, so he's entitled to present and defend his own position. That's what you'd expect. Nothing prevents others from challenging Nye to a public debate. Of course, Ham is more high-profile, so he garnered more viewers.

On a related note, there were critics who bemoan the missed opportunities to expose the public to other related and relevant issues. To some extent I agree. Of course, there's only so much you can say in one debate. In fact, the Ham/Nye debate already tried to cover too much ground.

What we need are public debates on multiple topics, like methodological atheism, or scientific evidence against macroevolution and universal common descent, &c.

There is, though, yet another issue. Some critics favor a mere Christianity or mere theism strategy.  They think inerrancy is a secondary issue. They think evolution is a secondary issue. As one critic put it:

So let’s make a hypothetical situation here. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, and I do not believe this at all, that the first two chapters of Genesis are in error. Does that mean the whole NT is untrustworthy? No. It does not. It just means we need to change our doctrines of inspiration and Inerrancy. Note I am taking a scenario that is unfavorable towards us intentionally and using it to show that the central truth can still stand. 

So in that case, I again repeat, if you want to know if Christianity is true, you don’t need to answer the question of evolution. If evolution is wrong, I would rather someone come to Christ with a belief in evolution, than to avoid Christ while having a true belief that evolution is wrong. I am more interested in getting people to Christ and removing as many hurdles from them as I can. I don’t want them to think they have to overcome a hurdle with evolution. Just show them what alone is essential. 

Now if you want to critique evolution, then have at it! Go for it! Just make sure that it is a scientific critique and not a Bible critique. The last thing we need is to have this be the case of science vs. the Bible. As soon as we put that to the world, guess which one they will go with. 

http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/clarification-on-discussing-evolution/

I'll return to this in a moment. I'd just like to contrast that to young-earth creationism. They have different priorities. Their aim is to convert people to the Bible. Their aim is to convert people to Biblical theism. The whole nine yards.

Now, you may disagree with their science. You may disagree with their exegesis. But I think their aim is correct. They use scientific arguments to defend their interpretation of Gen 1-11. That's because their ultimate commitment is to Bible history, as they understand it. And I agree with that. 

Of course, an old-earth creationist can have the same agenda. They simply disagree on what the Bible teaches. But (some of them) also believe in converting people to Biblical theism. 

Now let's compare and contrast that to the position I just quoted. It sounds very pious, very evangelistic, to say our priority should be converting people to Christ, and avoiding obstacles which impede conversion to Christ. But is that reductionistic strategy really pious?

Logically, that would mean we shouldn't require people to believe that God called Abraham out of Ur, that God spoke to Moses, that the Exodus really happened, that Isaiah foresaw the future, that God commissioned St. Paul. What if the Bible itself is a hurdle? 

In addition, let's review some versions of theistic evolution. Here's one:

Nonteleological Evolution, the view that, while the supernatural may exist, it does not intervene after the universe comes into existence…This view affirms evolution and shares many similarities with naturalistic evolution because even though a supernatural being may have jump started the process, the universe, as it evolved, did not originate or progress with an intended telos, or plan, in view. Therefore, the randomness that characterizes evolution in philosophical naturalism is preserved, as is the attempt to explain everything from naturalistic causes. M. Barrett & A. Caneday, eds. Four Views On the Historical Adam (Zondervan 2013), 20.

Would it be okay to graft that onto faith in Jesus? If not, why not? On scientific grounds? Biblical grounds?