Walter Hicks wrote:
> george murphy wrote:
...................................
> > & finally, my point stands that there is no good argument for YEC beyond that
> > based on its dubious assumptions about the character of biblical narratives.
>
> I once heard a viewpoint that says that God created the Universe with
> man in mind. In fact: that by the Gospel of John this is conveyed very
> clearly. If then the universe is created for man, is it so obvious that
> God would have it do 20 billion years of preparation for the coming of
> historical mankind. If that "history" is what is needed for the backdrop
> to mankind, then so be it. Do you think that God could not just as
> easily start the clock ticking some 10,000 years ago? Yeah, I know that
> you probably hate the "history built in" argument. Do I perhaps see an
> a-priori bias for "naturalism" that refuses to even consider anything
> else?
>
> I don't subscribe to YEC, but I think the arguments generally presented
> here don't hold overwhelming weight.
I don't think a full-blown evolutionary view of the world is a slam dunk from the
standpoint of either science or theology. There are a number of things that current
evolutionary theory hasn't explained well (in particular, the origin of life), and there is
some latitude in biblical interpretation. I can understand how informed & sensible people
can hold varieties of PC or OEC, though I think they're wrong in significant ways. But YEC
is a quite different matter, & that's what we're talking about. It is scientifically
worthless & theologically unnecessary.
God didn't create the universe simply with humanity in mind but humanity indwelt by
God - i.e., for the Incarnation. See Eph.1:10 and Col.1:15-20. This requires that there
be an intelligent species for the Logos to enperson. & if God acts to bring about such a
species in the world through natural processes - so that it's possible for that species to
understand the world on its own terms - then that species will arrive via evolution. That
takes a long time - & all the anthropic "coincidences" then become of theological
interest. But the whole idea is not simply an anthropic but a _the_anthropic principle.
I'll be glad to send to anyone who's interested my article "The Incarnation as a
Theanthropic Principle" which was published in _Word & World_ a few years ago.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 07:47:22 EST