Great interview w/my friend @PaulVanderKlay. This calls for a thread. /1
@PaulVanderKlay I really, really (really) hope people take Paul's words to heart: Jordan Peterson fandom is a mission field. Christians are free to ignore it out of squeamishness, snobbery, or indifference. But they're ignoring a mission field. /2
@PaulVanderKlay We also need to recognize how the church has failed men. Much more needs to be written on this. See @zugzwanged for good insights here. Church has been feminized, and Peterson is coming into the vacuum. /3
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged We also need to maintain our own identity and our own gospel message. "Petersonianism" runs out in the end. We must be able to explain why. Yet we must do so without downplaying the role of works. Salvation is complex. Don't oversimplify it. /4
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged Finally, I should say a bit about a point of disagreement with Paul. At the end he frames evolution as if the only Christians who have problems with it are "allergic" fundamentalists. The truth is more nuanced. /5
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged This can't be summarized in a thread, but Christians of all stripes, including Christians who are scientists, have *scientific* doubts about evolutionary science. They doubt that natural mechanisms can generate the variety of information we see in nature. /6
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged In order to be viable, evolution needs to explain the *differences* among animals and plants, instead of just pounding on similarities. There are scientific reasons to doubt that it can do so. /7
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged If you see a 4-year-old girl on the top of Mount Everest and you are informed that she got there "all by herself," the mere fact that she is on Mt. Everest doesn't change the fact that you know this claim is bullshit. /8
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged There are also reasons to doubt common descent and the Tree of Life. The goalposts are constantly shifted. When data come up that aren't predicted by CD, ad hoc hypotheses are tacked on. It's either an axiom or a hypothesis depending on context. /9
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged So the bottom line is that you don't have to swear by Ken Ham to have rational doubts about the evolutionary paradigm. Further, when it comes to imago Dei, human nature, exceptionalism, etc., there are many arguments pushing back on its plausibility & explanatory power. /10
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged Evolution isn't definitionally synonymous with science. Science is about searching for the best explanation of all available data, not just the best natural explanation. If evolution does not best explain the data, then it is not the best scientific explanation. /11
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged Of course, getting back to Jordan Peterson, this wipes out his unifying theory. But that's because he's still trapped in naturalism to a large extent. In these times Lewis is more relevant than ever. See: Miracles. /12
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged So you might say I've scuttled my own ship after announcing that JP fandom is a mission field by attacking one of JP's main pillars. But we need to cultivate integrated minds. We can't shrink from questioning even established dogma in pursuit of reason and truth. /13
@PaulVanderKlay @zugzwanged So, to sum up: Be gracious. Be bold. Be firm. Have the humility to admit what we do badly that Peterson does well. But have the confidence to affirm what is lacking in his paradigm. His fans might disagree with you. But you'll gain their respect. /End
