On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:01:50 -0600 (MDT) Denis wrote to Loren:
>SJ>But one of my arguments is that TEs who allow God's intervention
>in the origin of the universe, life and human beings, are really
>inconsistent PCs.
>LH>That argument is valid, but I think it is directed at a
>non-existent group. If there are any TE's out there who allow
>God's intervention in the origin of the universe, life, and human
>beings, but who categorically RULE OUT God's intervention in the
>rest of biological history, please raise your hands.
TEs may not "categorically rule out God's intervention in the rest of
biological history"in theory but in practice they do just that.
LH>Here, I think, is a more accurate portrayal of all TE's: We allow
>God's intervention at any time in history, but we believe, based on
>the scientific evidence and for various theological reasons, that a
>non-interventionist scenario is currently the best working hypothesis
>for studying and understanding biological history.
Why exactly is it "the best working hypothesis"? The Bible plainly
depicts God as an interventionist God, and science has no credible
answer to the origin of the universe and life.
DL>Agreed. Steve is really describing a "low-end of the scale"
>Progressive Creationist who is nearly a TE or EC. It is the type of
>PC that Stephen Jones appears to be in some posts.
This is a fair comment by Denis. My position is close to TE/EC (as
Terry Gray has admitted), which indicates a convergence around the
scientific evidence, but a divergence around the theological evidence.
It gives me hope that Denis might cease his ad hominem comments
where he tries to portray me as either a knave or a fool and start
clarifying the similaries and differences between my PC and his EC.
>DL>Both TEs and ECs claim that God does not intervene directly in the
>origin of life.
I am surprised at this assertion. Is it really true for "Both TEs and
ECs"? If "Both TEs and ECs" claim that "God does not intervene
directly in the origin of life", where *would* they claim that God
intervenenes?
DL>TEs tend to be more liberal theologically (eg, Polkinghorne) and
>give a certain autonomy to the creation. For example, they would say
>that the five fingers on our hand just happened to evolve.
This sounds more like NE. Surely a "TE" would say something about God
controlling the evolutionary process?
DL>An EC has a God that is a lot closer to the classical formulations
>of His attributes. For example, God "loaded" creation to result in a
>five finger human being as He had planned.
This sounds like what Erickson calls "Deistic Evolution":
"Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the
best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic
evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,
producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws
which its development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process.
Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so
to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created order is free
of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of everything, but only
the first living form was directly created. All the rest of God's
creating has been done indirectly. God is the Creator, the ultimate
cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause. Thus, except
for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic evolution is
identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies that there is any
direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative
process." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", Baker: Grand Rapids,
1985, p480)
DL>TEs tend to find process theology attractive, having a God who is
>in his own personal evolution. ECs have no trouble accepting God's
>intervention as directly seen in the NT miracles.
Surely most "TEs" do too?
DL>Polkinghorne, on the other hand, dismisses NT miracles as "stories"
>with no historical value (and yes, I got this first hand sitting
>under him in 1991 in a course at Regent College--I don't think he'll
>be invited back there for a while ;- )
Interesting. I wonder if Polkinghorne thinks the incarnation and
resurrection of Jesus were just "stories"? Erickson would probably
class Polkinghorne as a DE.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------