Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

Ted,

No quibble with the term progessive creationism or theistic
evolution (although as noted in the past, I much prefer evolutionary
creation).

I think I'm recalling Hodge on this. I'll spend some time trying to
locate the exact passage. Hodge is available on-line so I should be
able to cut and paste the exact quote (or give the URL).

My recollection is that Hodge makes your exact point about secondary
causes but gives theological/philosophical justification for it. I
also think there was something about the "reality" of creation in his
argument. Let me get the details and get back. It may well be rooted
in his Scottish common sense philosophy and not in real Biblical
theology.

As I mentioned, the doctrine of sustenance (as well as the doctrine
of immanence) is distinct from this view. It it not necessary to
believe that God re-creates everything moment-by-moment to believe
that God sustains the being, properties, and behaviors
moment-by-moment. When I hear Keith talk about continuous creation, I
have always assumed that he means the latter (the doctrine of
sustenance)--I also assumed that that was what you meant as well.

TG

> >>> "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> 3/31/2005 2:26:50 PM
>>>>asks, relative to the statement on origins used at Messiah:
>
>
>I'm wondering if anyone knows the history of this term [Ted: continuous
>creation] and how it
>came to be used to mean what I think your document and Keith means it
>to mean. In my reading of various systematic theologies, "continuous
>creation" means that God re-creates the universe moment-by-moment
>giving only the appearance of continuity of existence. This is
>rejected as heresy (and different from a doctrine of sustenance). I'm
>not suggesting that Messiah's document or Keith is using the term in
>this sense.
>
>Ted replies:
>Although I did draft this statement, there was a good bit of discussion and
>some editing by committee before it ended up in precisely this form. And it
>was several years ago. I no longer recall exactly why/how this particular
>term (continuous creation) came up. It might have been the preferred term
>by some in our old natural sciences department, and it might have been meant
>as an alternative term for "progressive creation." (PC, incidentally, was
>in use at least as early as 1830 in this country. Ramm endorsed it in 1954,
>but without I think realizing how long it had been in use. It's
>pre-Darwinian and in context quite definitely referred to the OEC views of
>some of the early natural historians on both sides of the pond. Ramm used
>it in just the same way, so I gather that it had at least one stable meaning
>all that time.)
>
>As for the point you raise about the view that God re-creates the universe
>moment by moment, I have not previously heard this described as heretical.
>Heresy of course always has a context--heretical to a particular group of
>religious believers, for a specific reason--that I'd like to know about in
>this case. It's possible that our statement might imply this to some
>readers, and it might also be a position held by someone here, I don't
>really know. I associate your sense of the term with "occasionalism," a
>formal philosophical position often assocaited with Descartes, who can be
>understood to be presenting that view of divine creation in his Principles
>of Philosophy, book 2. Malebranche might also be in this category. (As it
>happens, if you look up the term in the old Encylopedia of Philosophy, there
>is no entry, but you do find references to Cartesianism and to Malebranche.)
> I have sometimes leaned toward the view myself, inspired by the strong
>form of divine immanence that is found in the works of people like Dick Bube
>or Charles Coulson; Hooykaas might have leaned this way also. I do not take
>the position to be heretical. Mainly it stresses the mechanical passivity
>of matter and the constant activity of God in the world; it can be seen as a
>denial of the genuine efficacy of secondary causes, which obviously raises
>questions from scientists (who might think of it as heretical
>scientifically, if they are strong realists), but I'm puzzled why
>theologians would apply the label to it.
>
>Ted

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801