On Tue, 25 Jul 1995 09:56:56 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen said
SJ>This ongoing fuzziness of debate seems to be a major feature of
>evolutionary argument.
>Terry responded
TG>Fuzziness? This seems to be a common accusation when we get to
>this point in the discussion. It's not fuzzy to me at all. What's
>so fuzzy about it?
BH>Stephen, your observation cuts both ways. Those of us who accept
>evolution are frequently puzzled by the question of just what it is
>that a PC objects to about evolution.
In a nutshell, it denies that God can (or has) intervened directly in
biological history. Theologically, TE seems a different view of God
that one reads about in the Bible.
BH>The young earth creationist (the honest YEC anyway) is convinced
>that the creation account and the genealogies ought to be read in
>such a way as to exclude the possibility of development over billions
>of years instead of thousands. I disagree with that position, but at
>least I understand the intensity of such an individual's belief.
IMHO the YEC are right in standing for the direct supernatural
intervention of the Creator. Where they go wrong is their overly
literal interpretation of the time-frame in Genesis 1-11.
BH>You and I have a disagreement over the mechanisms God uses to
>govern nature -- although we agree that He is totally in control
>moment by moment.
Agreed. You (along with other TE's) believe that God only works
through natural causes, with possible exceptions in the origin of life
and man. I believe God works through natural causes normally, but
directly and supernaturally at strategic points, including the
origin of life, the origin of basic kinds, and the origin of man.
IMHO those TE's who believe that God acts supernaturally in the origin
of life and man, are really PC's. Consistent TE's should not need
God's direct intervention anywhere. If God acted directly in the
creation of life and man, why not other strategic points?
BH>It seems to me -- and I realize you may disagree emphatically --
>that it is not God's intention to give us a detailed description of
>the methods He uses in His governance in Scripture.
I agree there is no "detailed description". But the Bible does give
us a clear picture of a God who intervenes at strategic points. It is
these *theological* truths about God that I believe are all-important
and what are central to God's revelation of Himself. In this I am as
intense as any YEC.
Since the theory of evolution is used to attack and marginalise
Christianity, I believe it is important for Christians to come up with
a counter model of origins that takes the fight right up to the
naturalists in seeking to integrate the genuine facts of science with
this Biblical picture of the living God. IMHO Progressive Creation is
the model that best does that.
BH>Rather He seems more concerned with teling us Who He is and how we
>can have a right relationship with Him.
Yes. It is the "who He is" that is at stake here. Who God is, is
inextricably linked with what God does. This is clear in Glenn's
analogy of a wave-maker. Such a God who sets everything going and
then retires to let it run itself, might be the type of God that
intellectuals can worship, but IMHO it is not the type of God the vast
majority of ordinary men and women can believe would answer their
prayers.
BH>We seem to be looking at the world through quite different
>paradigms, and we ought to give some attention to what those
>paradigms are -- if that's possible :-).
Fine. That's what this debate is for! :-) What Jim Bell and I would
like to know is why is a supernaturally acting God is seemingly ruled
out, apriori?
God bless.
Stephen
PS: did you have a word with Jaques Chirac for us down here in Oz? :-)