Definition:
Christian Essentialist: A Christian who holds the essentials of
Christianity -- as stated in the historic creeds and confessions of
Christianity for example -- but is cautious about claiming the Bible as an
authority in areas not explicitly addressed in the essentials -- geology,
biology, physics,...
Many of you know that I don't like the term "Theistic Evolutionist"
because it seems to make theism a footnote to belief in evolution, or
"evolutionary creationist" because again it puts -- IMO -- too much
emphasis on evolution. I usually characterize myself as a Christian who
doesn't reject evolution, but that can get unwieldy, and again it puts too
much emphasis on one issue -- and I'm not a one-issue person. I'll get
roasted for the implications of this definition, but so be it. Searchers
come up with good and bad ideas, and the only to find out which ones are
any good is to put them in the marketplace.
>DT: > nor does it [theistic evolution] satisfy our scientific judgments as to
>>>the significance of the evidence.
>
>BH: > But when you add the above, I have to wonder, "Is he adding
>this because he has genuine problems with the science involved,
>or because he wants something to bolster what his faith and his
>reading of the Scriptures tell him?" >
DT:> Do any of us know our own motives properly? I am coming
>from the perspective that all truth belongs to God, and there are
>ultimately no conflicts between the different disciplines of
>knowledge. Because my knowledge of these disciplines is
>imperfect, I am sure I don't get the balance exactly right.
Good point. I'm glad you said "ultimately". From God's point of view I
doubt that there are separate fields of knowledge such as physics, geology,
psychology, biochemistry, philosophy, etc. From God's point of view all
knowledge is a consistent unity. It's conceivable that in human history we
will reach the point where we see that unity -- at least see it better than
we do now. But I see the fall as an event which divided man from man, man
from God and (reasonable inference) divided knowledge into separate spheres
pursued by specialists. Adam wanted to know good and evil without having
to consult with God, and it seems God has given him and his progeny the
assignment of learning how nature works from the bottom up, rather than
seeing it from God's (top down) point of view. None of us have the balance
exactly right, and what I argue for with people on both sides of the
creation/evolution controversy is that we need to recognize that fact in
our dealings with our Christian brothers. For the most part members ofthis
reflector _do_ recognize that fact, and I'm grateful for that.
>
[snip]
>
>>BH: >> However, suppose from God's point of view the creation
>was accomplished when He issued the commands. In this scheme
>God's creative role would comprise the design of nature and the
>setting in motion of the various processes which would carry out
>his will.>>
>BH: > I think Heb 11:3 supports my position quite well. "Prepared
>by the _word_ of God (there He is again, orchestrating everything
>with His word) so that what is seen was not made out of what is
>visible". It doesn't say _when_ creation took place. From God's
>point of view, it may well have been done when He issued the
>commands to His exquisitely balanced nature to bring about
>everything He had in mind to be made (not created -- that had
>already happened)>
> The point is not WHEN creation took place, but WHAT was
>created: that which is seen. We turn to Genesis 1 to find what
>is seen and we find the earth, the sun, the stars, the plants,
>animals, man. Then we read about creation being finished.
When is creation finished? Since the time of Genesis 1:31 stars have
"created" successively heavier elements by fusion burns. Supernovas have
occurred. New islands have appeared in the sea (Surtsey off the coast of
Iceland for example). The material universe is in a constant state of
change. So if you are going to tie the completion of creation to the
material aspects of the universe, it would seem difficult to define a
definite point of completion. On the other hand a human designer considers
the product designed when he has specified it to the point that no further
input is required by the designer. (Of course human designers are often
wrong about when they're "done". God knows when he is finished with a
design) Once God has put in place a functioning universe and the agencies
by which further development of the universe is to occur and by which God
will exercise his sovereignty, then God's _creative_ work (not His
sustaining work) can end. I'm not insisting on this interpretation, but I
do believe it's viable.
[snip]
>BH: > Part of the problem comes from the fact that evolution
>theorists have redefined evolution as variations in the
>distribution of alleles in a population from generation
>to generation. Defined this way evolution is an established fact
>which can be demonstrated in lab work and field work. "But," you
>may say, "all they can demonstrate that way is microevolution."
>True. But no one has yet been able to demonstrate that there are
>any barriers between microevolution and macroevolution.>
[no comment on Phil seeing that evolution is defined in a variety of ways]
>I would suggest that the redefinition of evolution you
>mention leads to confusion rather than clarity.
It may lead to confusion outside the biology community. Within the biology
community, however, I suspect that the reason for redefining evolution in
terms of variation of allele frequencies was to put evolution on a sound
empirical basis. IOW to reduce the definition to something that could be
unequivocally demonstrated. We ought to be glad that they have actually
tried to separate fact from a deduction from several lines of evidence. On
a number of occasions I have offered the opinion on talk.origins that
common descent (the idea that all living things are descended from common
ancestors -- essentially what Henry Morris means when he says evolution) is
an inference from the fact of evolution and the fossil record, and no one
has challenged it. That change in definition potentially allows Christians
to avoid unnecessary conflicts with biochemists and population geneticists
who use the allele frequency definition and to whom paleontology is someone
else's field. Now I'm fully convinced that the earth is as old as the
geologists claim it is, and that means that progressive creation or
evolution are the most viable models for the development of life. I still
have a potential conflict with people like Stephen Gould and Richard
Dawkins. Neither Gould nor anyone else has any basis for asserting that
evolution could occur without divine instigation and direction, and even
Dawkins sometimes expresses wonder at the apparent design he sees.
Furthermore, they cannot absolutely rule out progressive creation. So, by
acknowledging what empirical science has pretty well established, I'm in a
position to discuss issues it hasn't established.
[snip]
> The issue is not primarily "how scientifc data is
>interpreted". The problem in our culture is that naturalism is
>claiming all the intellectual high ground - nature is all there
>is. This is part of our culture. It is now part of what "makes
>people tick". The gospel is drained of meaning within this
>culture - we don't need redemption!
I totally agree. I finished most of "Reason in the Balance" last week and
sent Phil a note complimenting him on it. What I complimented him on is
that I believe he is correct in identifying naturalism as the culprit.
Quite a few Christians seem to believe that if evolution could be shown to
be badly flawed, naturalism would collapse, but I think that view is naive.
There were plenty of naturalists around before Darwin. Dawkins claims
that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually respectable
atheist. But destroying evolution wouldn't cause atheists to seek the Lord
en masse. Some would choose to be intellectually unrespectable, and others
would simply argue that Dawkins is wrong (I have a number of atheist
friends who do just that.)
>
>Apologies for the length - but thanks for the discussion. It's
>made me think!
And me too.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com