Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

> So, here's how it works for most IDs:
> If you fully accept evolution, you have to have an open theism or else a
> process theism. This surrenders too much of the classical doctrine of
> God.
> Christianity (with Incarnation, resurrection as traditionally understood)
> requires the classical doctrine of God. Therefore, TEs who profess
> Christianity are "confused," or "mushy accommodationists."
>
> Now frankly, from talking with many IDs at length about these things, I
> believe it is they who are confused about the range of opinion within the
> TE
> camp; and I don't believe that enough of them have thought hard enough
> about
> things like quantum uncertainty and divine providence, an issue
> independent
> of "darwinism" but one that can affect how one views evolution. My charge
> to them, is to be more theologically discerning. Their charge to us, is
> to
> be more honest (as they see it) about the shortcomings of the standard
> evolutionary model.

1) If IDers are "confused about the range of options within the TE camp"
they ought to do a little homework. They aren't confused, they're ignorant.
(& if that seems harsh, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. The other
possibility is that they know about other TE views but dishonestly deny that
they exist.)

2) There are indeed problems with process theism but there are also serious
problems with what usually passes for "classical theism" - philosophical
theism with anything christological or trinitarian tacked on as an
afterhtought. In this "classical theism" neither creation nor Incarnation
makes any difference to God - and I mean that literally. As long as people
debating the issues insist on starting from some philosophical theism -
whether that of Plato, Aristotle or Whitehead - they'll be stuck with one of
those two dubious alternatives. What's needed, of course, is a theology
that is christological & trinitarian from the git-go.

3) IDers generally avoid talking about theological issues in public. They
like to pretend that of course they have the religious high ground so
there's nothing really to argue about. As long as their theological
inadequacies aren't exposed, all the science in the world won't change the
minds of people in the street who think that something like ID is needed to
"prove" their beliefs.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

 
Received on Fri May 20 11:50:13 2005