The Jolly Nihilist has asked me about what I think of William Lane Craig and his views on Darwinian evolution.
Time for a brief walk inside my mind. :-) Watch your step - there's manure everywhere.
I respect Craig's apologetical and philosophical mind, but in fact that's kind of what gets him into trouble. He centers too much on philosophy and thus kind of leaves his moorings behind alot of the time. It leads him to say things like this, and more notably it leads him to hold to Molinism and to say "Well, I disagree with Calvinism" when Hitchens asked him if he thought any Christian denoms were wrong. (Woulda been a lot better to say "Rome" or "Eastern Orthodoxy".)
I agree with him when he says "Christians enjoy the advantage over the naturalist of being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads". Little is more apparent than this.
Thesis of Common Descent, one should be cautious about accepting it, although biomolecular evidence is in its favor
Here I'd say he fails to challenge the question that CD begs.
Finally, I disagree with this: "an evolutionary theory is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis 1". When it really gets down into the meat of the "biblical acct" he'd tease out of the text, it ends up in a mishmash of inconsistencies and hermeneutical gymnastics. I've seen a fair amount of that and rarely been impressed. You may have heard of the various stripes of this: theistic evolution, day-age theory, gap theory. Plenty of ppl hold to one of these, but I can't really say they're convincing to me.
Anyway, you asked me if I thought Craig's hermeneutic is flawed, and the answer is unequivocally yes, in several areas. Certainly not in all, and I'm sure we have much more in common than not, but here and in his Molinism, certainly. What I'd need to see is a good engagement with at least these three things:
1) the order of the acct - for example, plants appear on the 3rd day. Sun on 4th day. Doesn't match.
Water creatures and birds on 5th day. Doesn't match.
Land creatures on the 6th day, as well as humans. Doesn't match.
2) Jesus spoke of the first ppl as "the beginning" and God's creation. Also spoke of Noah's flood as an actual event.
3) Paul also treated Adam and Eve as real ppl and a historical event. Peter treated the flood as a real event.
There could be other things, but that's a decent start.