In a message dated Tue, 9 Jan 2001 8:02:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bill
Payne <bpayne15@juno.com> writes:
<< On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:48:03 -0500 "bivalve"
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
> But it is the YEC and ID viewpoints that box God in by accepting
> naturalistic claims. By excluding God from interacting with
> creation using certain natural means, such as biological evolution,
> they concede to the claims of philosophical naturalists like
> Dawkins.
Sorry, I don't follow your logic.
Bill
>>
I'll try, since this is a point I often make as well.
For the viewpoints mentioned (at least for most of their adherents), the only
action that "counts" as being done by God is intervention outside natural
processes. The attitude is that once there is a "natural" explanation for
something (the evolution of life, for example), that is equivalent to saying
God didn't do it. This "natural explanations exclude God" attitude comes
from atheists like Dawkins and gets adopted uncritically by Christians like
Phil Johnson. That boxes God in by not allowing him to create via his
sovereignty over nature.
Before the usual objections come, let me say clearly (and I think this would
be agreed to by almost all of us "evolutionary creationists") that it is just
as wrong to say that God CAN'T create in "interventionist" ways as to say
that he MUST create that way.
If we recognize that either route (intervention or "natural", or a mix of the
two, to whatever extent they are distinct categories which is another
question) is theologically OK for God's action, then we can look at nature
(and at whatever hints Scripture might give) to try and see how he really did
things.
And we can do that without the "God of the Gaps" fear that finding "natural"
explanations for things in nature will push God out of the picture.
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 10:38:08 EST