George,
Most often I agree with what you write and am well informed by it. I am
quite amazed, however, at your response to Kenneth Piers. You wrote:
<< The belief that the first humans were in "perfect fellowship with
God the Creator" is highly problematic. There is no theological reason to
accept it, and if we do so, evolution will always be something of a foreign
element in our theology, however much we may be willing to accept it as a
scientific theory. >>
Reading in Genesis that God brought animals to Adam to name, and that when he
walked in the Garden in the evening, Adam and Eve hid from him, one can
reasonable infer that God and A&E had a pretty close if not perfect
fellowship.. I do not see it as "highly problematic." If this is not
acceptable theologically, what is the theological alternative--that they had
no relationship, or a defective one, or a immature one?
Moreover your reason for not accepting it theologically seems to be because
"evolution will always be something of a foreign element in our theology."
That seems pretty weak to me. While I do not hold that the Bible is a filter
through which all of scientific concepts must pass, in this case, your reason
seems rather stretched.
<<This is part of an essentially static world view which simply contradicts
what we know about the general character of God's whole creation. & it
doesn't help to say that things evolved up to the point where humans emerged.
In fact, by suggesting that all the rest of creation & cosmic history has
been here only as a kind of launching pad for humanity, it leads to a
devaluation of the non-human creation.>>
I'm not sure that Piers said anything like that. In what sense is Piers
presentation a static world view? That seems to come from somewhere else
than what he wrote.
<< IMO it is much better to understand humanity, having been created by
God through evolutionary processes, to have the potential to develop (again
through divine cooperation) toward such fellowship. Where perfect
fellowship of humanity (& the rest of creation) with God the Creator occurs
is in the Incarnation, which should not be seen as God's "Plan B" but as the
plan for creation from the beginning (Eph.1:10)>>
You are conflating evolution and development. You use them interchangeably.
They are not interchangeable, but rather quite distinct biological processes.
I do not find that you recognize development in your evo-theo framework.
That is a serious omission, IMHO.
You have in other notes insisted, as I recall, that IDers spell out in detail
by what process God introduced design in the biological world, implying, if
I'm not mistaken that unless and until they did so, their theories would
never enter the mainstream of scientific work. I think, however, you are
beholden to the same requirement. By what process did God "divinely
cooperate" with evolution to produce human beings, and how can this
cooperation be studied scientifically?
<<Again I would point out the general view of the Eastern Church, that
humanity was not created perfect but in an immature state. While this is of
course not an "evolutionary" view in the modern sense, it is open to
evolutionary theories in the way that the western idea of humanity created
in a state of static perfection (with all the totally unbiblical
speculations about A&E's beauty, wisdom, physical abilities &c) is not. >>
IMHO again, the Eastern Church has it right, but not for the reason that you
do. Humanity, in an immature state is a developmental, not an evolutionary
concept (not that the Eastern church is beholden to either view). Development
is essentially, teleological, with the goal of full maturation (In the image
of God, theologically speaking), or in the case of animals, full sexual
maturation. That, I believe, fits the history of the human race. Evolution,
if defined, as most biologists do, as natural selection, is of all things,
not teleological. You have chosen the evolutionary route, and yet claim that
evolution is *directed*, as I understand you. Directed toward what?
As an overall picture of human prehistory, I think both science and theology
are better served with an expanded concept of development (starting with
humanity in an immature state) that operated in early phyletic history,
accompanied by and followed later by the adapting operation of natural
selection.
Best regards,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 06:55:18 EST