From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 10:37:22 EDT
Howard wrote;
> 1. It would, however, still be of some value to demonstrate that the
> science-like arguments against the broad concept of evolutionary
> continuity
> via natural processes (in a God-equipped universe) are unsound and
> will not
> serve to give meaningful support to interventionist pictures of divine
> creative action.
I agree, but this is still, in my mind, secondary to addressing the
theological concerns.
>
> 2. How deep are people willing to dig to uncover the the "root
> theological
> concerns" that you suggest need to be addressed? Consider, for example,
> these two levels:
>
> (a) Continuing to re-examine, re-examine and re-examine the biblical
> text to
> find out what is THE correct and authoritative biblical teaching
> regarding
> the formational history of the Creation or the character of divine
> creative
> action.
>
> (b) Challenging the presupposition that there is such a thing as THE
> correct
> and authoritative biblical teaching regarding the formational history
> of the
> Creation or the character of divine creative action and accepting the
> difficult task of developing a perspective, not by appeal to an ancient
> canon declared to represent divine authority, but by a rational
> examination
> of a diversity of relevant considerations -- empirical, theological,
> philosophical, historical -- all recognized as the products of
> thoroughly
> human efforts to make sense of the grand human experience.
>
> I suggest that (a) has been adequately tried, and has failed. I am
> personally inclined to dig deeper and follow an approach more like (b).
I agree that looking for THE correct answer to our modern scientific
questions in
the biblical text is not appropriate. In the realm of ethics as well,
answers to specific
problems are commonly not given. Even many of our theological
questions are
not given unambiguous answers. Rather, scripture presents the
incarnate Christ
into whose image we are to be conformed. We as fallen humans want
simple,
direct, right or wrong, yes or no, answers to our questions. But we
are given instead
a call to holiness and the word made flesh. I believe that this
intolerance for ambiguity
and uncertainty is another very important aspect of the problem. One
thing that I see
repeatedly is people's great reluctance to accept uncertainty and their
fear of doubt.
I think that we all deal with this at some level.
However, I believe that it is entirely possible and appropriate to view
scripture as
authoritative, while recognizing that it still does not give specific
unambiguous answers
to many of the questions that we really want to know the answers to.
It has also been
stated before on this forum, that we must always recognize the
humanness of the
theological as well as the scientific enterprise. But this again does
not necessitate
that the authority of scripture be rejected - just that it proper use
and purpose be recognized.
Thank you Howard, as always, for your clear and pointed exposure of the
issues.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 10:46:02 EDT