I am posting this to the Calvin evolution list and evolutioncreationdebate,
since Stephen is leaving the Calvin list. I invite Howard Van Till to
repost his original critique to evolutioncreationdebate. I think it would
have a wider audience there.
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:59:31 -0500, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
>HVT>The historic _doctrine_ of creation articulates the belief that the
>entire
> >universe was given its "being" (its existence, character, resources,
> >capabilities, potentialities,...) by a Creator. This doctrine says nothing
> >about the particulars of the formational history of the created world.
>
>Stephen: Disagree. Howard's minimalist definition of creation is Deism.
>The Bible
>says not only that God created, but also much about how God created.
"let there be. . . " is not as detailed as I, personally, would like.
Howard, as far as I know, is not a Deist. Deists believed that God had no
personal relationship with human beings. The amount of time it would have
taken for humans to evolve from the moment of the Big Bang would be nothing
to an eternal being. An omniscient being would also have realized that
eventually an organism that could detect his presence would eventually
evolve. At that point, then he could have entered into a relationship with
that organism.
>HVT>So, if Darwin says "I had two distinct objects in view; *firstly*, to
>shew
> >that species had not been SEPARATELY created ..."
> >
> >And if Darwin says that he has "...done good service in aiding to overthrow
> >the dogma of SEPARATE creations..."
>
>Stephen: Agreed that Darwin here says "separate creation", i.e. that every
>species
>was specially created as is, where is.
>
>But it is clear that from the rest if the Origin (in which Darwin mentions
>"creation" or its cognates *98* times and almost all derogatively) that by
>this strawman (see tagline) Darwin means *the* Christian doctrine of
>creation.
He was talking about the doctrine of *successive creations* as he says and
as Van Till points out. Darwin assumed at that time that God created the
universe itself. Darwin knew his audience and he knew what the accepted
paradigm was. He knew what he had to overcome and what his theory was
replacing. In his day the fact that life had a long history was already
known. They also knew that creatures in deep--and, they assumed, more
ancient--strata didn't resemble modern species. Therefore prevailing
thought was that there were many successive creation events. The last
creation event--the one where humans were created as it was described in
the Bible--must have been the most recent. I think Bufon came up with this.
They were obviously already headed in the direction of evolution, guided by
the evidence.
>HVT>For Mr. Jones to confuse the dogma of SEPARATE form-imposing
>interventions
> >(a matter of formational history) with the DOCTRINE of creation (a
> matter of
> >the source of the universe's being) is seriously to
> >misunderstand/misrepresent the issue.
>
>Howard here shoots himself in the foot. He uses the same pejorative
>"form-imposing interventions" terminology for the ordinary view of
>creation that most Christians believe in from reading the Bible. Thus
>Howard agrees with Darwin that what is the problem for evolutionists
>is *any* form of God's intervention!
You don't understand what Howard is saying.
>IMHO it is *Howard* and his ilk who by their pejorative terminology like
>"form-imposing interventions" try to make out that the ordinary Biblical
>view of creation which has been believed by the vast majority of Jewish and
>Christian believers down through the ages is somehow unusual. When in
>reality it is *Howard's* (and his ilk's) *non*-interventionist version of
>creation
>that is unusual among Christians.
Actually, it is my understanding that Biblical literalism only began with
Luther. The vast majority of Christians in the world are Catholics who are
not generally Biblical literalists and who believe that God created the
universe but that the Bible is not necessarily a blow-by-blow account. Also
I'm unaware that there are very many Jewish literalists either. I think the
Jews believe that Genesis is an account of how a human properly interacts
with a Deity, and that that is it's important message.
And, as far as I know, nobody now believes in the "many successive creation
events" scenario that was believed by Christians in Darwin's day and which
he was addressing.
>So Howard's views on creation are not drawn from the Bible, and thus are
>not pure Christian theism, but instead are heavily influenced by modern day
>scientific *naturalistic* thinking.
Howard can easily defend himself, but I think you are wrong about this.
Howard's a Christian who believes that God created the world. Therefore the
world is God's work and is worth more study and respect than any book, no
matter how holy.
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 26 2000 - 20:53:23 EST