"This is just Howard's private pejorative epithet for creationists,
presumably in order to give the impression that they hold an unusual view
and that Howard's is the normal view. But the fact is that the vast
majority of Christians are today, and have been down through the ages, what
Howard calls 'episodic creationist'."
Interesting eisegesis of my remarks, but quite off the mark. There's
nothing in the term 'episodic creationist' that is inherently pejorative or
indicative of some abnormality. In fact, I agree with Stephen that it is
the portrait of the Creation's formational history that is most common in
contemporary Christianity. I also happen to think it is a portrait that has
outlived its usefullness, but that's another matter.
More from SJ:
"And the reason they are is not because of any "need for a succession of
episodes of irruptive, form-imposing interventions by a Creator" but
because that is what *Genesis 1* depicts, whether one interprets it
literally or symbolically."
Two comments: (1) Most attempts to justify episodic creationism
scientifically entail arguments for the insufficiency of evolutionary
processes, which implies the need for those occasional episodes of
form-imposing divine intervention. (2) To say that Genesis "depicts"
episodes of form-imposing intervention requires the prior assumption that
it is a succinct *chronicle* of the Creation's formational history--that it
must be read as a 'what happened when' account. I don't see it as a
chronicle at all. I see it as 'storied theology' -- a common Ancient Near
Eastern story form employed to answer the question, Who is this God who
comes to covenant with Israel? Answer: He is the One who gave being to
"the heavens and the earth."
More from SJ:
"Even the Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett recognises that Genesis 1
depicts God creating in "successive waves of Creation" and contrasts
this with Darwin's non-interventionist view: [quotation]
Sorry, I do not take Danniel Dennett as an authority on matters of biblical
interpretation.
SJ again:
"Now it is one thing for Howard to prefer Darwin's non-intervention
pattern, but it is quite another for him to level pejorative epithets
against the vast majority of his fellow Christians because they prefer
to be faithful to Genesis 1's frankly episodic and interventionist
pattern."
(1) As I indicated above, there is nothing inherently pejorative about the
'episodic creationist' label. (2) I belive that being "faithful to
Genesis 1" entails a candid acknowledgement of the way in which it employs
the literary forms and conceptual vocabulary of the Ancient Near East.
SJ, on my suggestion that ID is based on the artisan metaphor:
"This sweeping generalisation of Howard's is also pejorative, in
that it tries to characterise ID as having a limited concept of
design which is based on a single metaphor. No ID theorist that I
know of claims that "`design' is *based* on the artisan metaphor"."
I stand by my position because of the way in which most proponents of ID
have tightly coupled the concepts of *purposeful conceptualization* and
*assembly by extranatural agent action.* My proposal is to distinguish
clearly: (1) the action of a mind (or a Mind) in the conceptualization of
something for the accomplishment of a purpose, from (2) the action of hands
(or their divine equivalent) in the assembly of something from extant
materials or components. When the concepts of 'purposeful
conceptualization' and 'extranatural assembly' become clearly distinguished
from one another so that arguments for each can be be conducted on its own
merits the evaluation of ID can become a fruitful exercise.
Howard J. Van Till