<<Perhaps it is the rarity of Calvinism in evangelical Christianity these
days that makes this TE/EC point of view so difficult to swallow to many on
the lists.>>
I hadn't thought as much about the Calvinistic influence on your POV. Being of
an Arminian stripe, perhaps this explains MUCH about our disagreements! Yes,
we can disagree about the evidence, but our theological lenses are probably
thicker than I had previously appreciated. We don't want to get into the
thicket of theoloy on this list too much, but there it is. Something I'll put
into the mix from now on.
<< "How can you call a process
theistic if God has no empirically observable role?" Phil J. has gone so
far as to call my evolutionary creation position *vacuous*. I think in
part because it has no explicit apologetic value in the battle between a
theistic way of thinking and a naturalistic one.>>
I think you're right about this. The fear is that the "tail wags the dog" for
TE. IOW, TE obediently follows naturalism and its proponents, and at the end
merely adds, "That's how God did it."
But I've been thinking a lot about this recently, and with the theology above
more explicit, I don't think that's necessarily the case. In fact, as I've
stated before, I like the Van Tillian formulation of Basil/Augustine. It's
beautiful. It's artistic and exquisite. On some theological grounds I
disagree, but I've been wrong before (ask Glenn Morton about this). Also, I
have a quite different view of the science.
But the view is not vacuous, IMO. I'd like to explore, at some point, its
apologetic implications.
Thanks again, Terry.
Jim