Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

I have to say that I disagree. Why should we make a distinction between the
FORMATIVE HISTORY of nature and the SALVATION HISTORY of humans? I think
that miracles are necessary for both.

But, I am not saying that we should attribute missing transitional forms,
or the appearance of design in nature as miracles, necessarily. And I dont
think that such thinking is scientific. I think that is the issue that most
in ASA have with ID, is that IDers are using these gaps as proof of God, and
attempting to make it science when it is still faith.

But in order for God to have created the Universe there had to be a miracle,
a supernatural imposition of God somewhere along the line. Personally, I
think that God's imposition is continuous, but that is a different subject.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Rusbult" <craig@chem.wisc.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

> Jack says,
>>As I have said before, you have to accept all three to be Christian.
>>There
>>is no way that the resurrection of Christ is anything but type 2.
>>
>>So, if ASA members are denying the existence of type 2, (which I have not
>>heard anyone claim despite what Glenn says), then they shouldnt be ASA
>>members as this is contrary to the ASA statement of faith.
>
> Oops.
> I agree with you, Jack. Thanks for calling an omission to my
> attention.
>
> Usually I emphasize this in all writing about theology of evolutionary
> creation, but I forgot it before so here it is now:
> We should distinguish between the FORMATIVE HISTORY of nature and the
> SALVATION HISTORY of humans. I have theological respect for a proponent
> of
> evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) who says "God did miracles in
> salvation history, but -- due to a clever design of nature, and an absence
> of humans whose 'personal salvation history' would benefit from observing
> miracles -- this was not necessary in formative history."
> As you say, Jack, "I have not heard anyone [in ASA] claim [that they
> deny all miracles]."
> By contrast, I think a person who denies all miracles, especially the
> resurrection of Jesus, is missing a key doctrine of Christianity. The
> cross is important for salvation, but so is the resurrection. I wouldn't
> say that a person who denies ALL #2-design (by miraculous-appearing
> action)
> cannot be saved, since only God can know the heart and can judge fairly,
> but such a person is certainly theologically deficient in an essential
> doctrine.
>
> Craig
>
Received on Tue May 24 21:01:12 2005