Re: Low view of Creation's gifts
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:37:58 -0500 (EST)
At 02:26 PM 9/4/98 -0500, john zimmer wrote:
>I agree that Christians discount the operation of God's creativity
>through his creation (if that makes sense). I would say that acknowledging
>this operation is the key to complementarity. By looking at the
>exception - the gap - if you will, one is basically claiming that
>reality - or whatever you call what we observe and participate in -
>appears incomplete and that a certain element (the divine) is necesary
>to complete it. But I think that God is way more sophisticated than
>we imagine. The "two books" are textually complete.
>
>The appearance of or desire for incompleteness is an illusion
>generated by choosing one "book" over the other. We cannot choose one
>or the other. We participate in both.
>
>Ray
>
>
>At 09:21 AM 9/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Once again I have plowed through a series of postings on the ASA listserve.
>>
>>To be candid, it was discouraging.
>>
>>Why? I'll try a brief explanation.
>>
>>As a Christan I beleive the entire universe to be a Creation, that is,
>>something that has been given its 'being' by the Creator-God of whom the
>>Scriptures attest. The 'being' of the Creation consists not only in having
>>existence and having various properties, but also in having a rich
>>diversity of capabilities for action. Whatever atoms, or molecules, or
>>cells, or organisms are capable of doing is, in this Christian
>>'creationist' perspective, to be celebrated as a gift from God--a symbol of
>>God's incomprehensible creativity (in first conceptualizing these
>>remarkable gifts) and unlimited generosity (in the giving of all of these
>>capabilities).
>>
>>Against this theological background, I am both puzzled and discouraged by
>>the prevalence of anti-evolutionary arguments in this list of the following
>>genre:
>>
>>Evolution could not have occurred because atoms do not have the
>>capabilities to accomplish X, or because molecules do not have the
>>capabilities to do Y, or cells do not have the capabilities to do Z.
>>
>>Why are Christians inclined to hold such a low view of the Creation's gifts
>>for accomplishing the Creator's intentions for the formational history of
>>the Creation? Was the Creator unableor unwilling to so gift it? Did He lack
>>the creativity to conceptualize the requisite creaturely capabilities? Was
>>He able to do so, but not sufficiently generous? Did he purposely withhold
>>a few key gifts so that the Creation would not have the requisite
>>capabilities to actualize certain novel forms of life in the course of its
>>formational history?
>>
>>Does anyone think about the theological implications of this concept of the
>>character of the Creation's capabilities? Why would Christians expect the
>>Creation to have vacancies in its menu of formational capabilities?
>>
>>Howard van Till
>>
>>
>
>