> Dear Juli:
>
> > How can a person be a "theistic evolutionist" or the more favored
> > "evolutionary creationist"? If some people interpret data that
> > leads them to believe there is an evolutionary process going on
> > everywhere (let's not digress to discussing why it's inconsistent,
> > as in cockroaches, turtles and alligators) then I don't understand
> > why a "theistic influence" is needed. In other words, at risk of
> > oversimplifying this issue, if creation itself continues to evolve
> > (whatever that means), why is God needed for directing the evolu-
> > tionary process?
>
> There is a hidden, unquestioned assumption behind your question and your
> line of
> reasoning, which is very common among people today. That is, what I call the
> clockwork paradigm. God created the world like a complex clock, and he has
> to
> intervene and wind it up occasionally. That is God's job; otherwise He
> would be
> unemployed and useless. Meanwhile, the clock usually runs by itself,
> independent of God (what we call "autonomy").
>
> This whole paradigm, which was developed before Newton, ignores the true
Newton believed that God had to intervene at certain points to "re-wind
the clock" concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies. The idea of a
"clockwork universe" came after Newton, by philosophers and scientists
in the 18th century using Newton's laws as their paradigm, but Newton
rejected to this idea.
> doctrine of Creation, which is a theological, ontological doctrine that says
> that God is the creator of the whole physical universe out of nothing,
> including
> all time, space and matter. God is not a creature, so no scientific theory
> can
> either defend or refute the doctrine of creation.
The scientific "Steady State" theory of cosmology would deny that the
universe had a beginning, but one could make an argument that it had a
large component of philosophy inherent in it. The Big Bang theory might
be a candidate for a scientific theory that defends the creation of the
physical universe out of nothing, as long as one does not posit that the
world was eternal before the expansion at 10^(-43) seconds (of course, it
it were eternal, I'm not sure what the 10^(-43) seconds could be counted
from!) I assume that what Paul is trying to communicate here is that the
notion that *God* created the universe is not something that can be
determined scientifically (but I tend to think that it can be defended
philosophically). By the way, Aquinas did not believe that a beginning
to the universe could be demonstrated apart from the Bible; his
cosmological proof utilized God's sustaining power to uphold all things
continually as being necessary for existence of the universe. I think
this is akin to what Paul is trying to say.
>Ontology refers to existence.
> It answers the question, "why does anything exist?" Genesis answers that.
> It tells the Who and the Why, not the How. The latter is for science to
> investigate.
This is a theological/hermenutical view not shared by all evangelicals.
Many think that the Bible, and Genesis in general can answer "how"
questions. And some think that science can answer some "why" questions,
but not necessarily the "why" of purpose (even though the principles of
processes or objects taking the path of least energy or time, or "least
resistance" is very close to a teleological concept). Perhaps the "why"
questions of science ("Why is the sky blue?") boil down to "how" questions.
> The clockwork paradigm also ignores the doctrine of Providence, which is
> God's continuous and faithful rule in the world -- e.g. see Psalm 104. God is
> sovereign over all creation, He is immanent (present everywhere), and He is not
> a passive spectator. And the world is therefore not autonomous. Nothing takes
> God by surprise.
>
> I commend to you the confessions of Reformation Christianity, such as the
> Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 or the Westminster Confession of 1647. They
> lay out these doctrines very carefully and scripturally.
> >
> > I'm most certainly not a Deist ("God set it all into motion and
> > sat back on His Throne to watch...") but this idea of "theistic
> > evolution" seems to have a bit of a deist flavor to it.
> >
> On the contrary, it is the YEC creationist view that is deist. Because, as I
> said above, it assumes that the relationship of Creator:creature is like
> that of
> clockmaker:clock. This view opens up the possibility that God didn't make a
> fully functional creation at the beginning, and he has to intervene (via
> "gaps"
> like special creation of new species) from time to time.
I think that the YEC view or the TE view can be deist or classical theist
concerning the providence of God. One can view either position either
way. I don't think that deism is intrinsic to either. It just depends
on whether one thinks that God is acting or not acting in each process
(or supertending). The YEC view does not necessarily say that God *had
to* chose a universe where he would have to intervene, only that he chose
to make it that way. The view of the universe is not like a fully
functional clock that needs re-winding from time to time or breaks down
and needs repair, but that of a creation that is not finished until the
end of the 6th day. Similarly the TE view is not necessarily that of God
setting the laws into motion and then walking away with his "hands" off
of the universe. However, I can understand if one has trouble
conceptionalizing or understanding the concept of how nature is made as a
"seemless web" with "full functional integrity" and also how God is
providentially guiding that, since "full functional integrity" built in
to do what matter will do based upon its nature as constructied by God sure
sounds like winding the clock and letting it go. This takes some thought,
though, because we do not want to go to the other extreme and say that
God makes us do everything (occasionalism) and that we are just puppets
for God with no free will. However, I don't think accusing views or
people of being deists accomplishes much, unless they explicitly affirm
that they are.
Jeff