Re: agreeing about a mere creation?

   I understand Terry's concerns regarding characterizing our chapter in
"Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" as saying "...the jury is still
out."
   It's a matter of context.

   In many of my writings, including that chapter, I try to say:
-Theologically, I don't see strong preference for evolutionary creation
       vs. progressive creation/ID;
--Scientifically, the door is still open to either possibility;
---However, I think there are many good reasons to favor evolutionary
          creation;
----However, I'm willing to be pursuaded otherwise.

   Which of those points I emphasize, at any particular time, depends upon
the context and the audience. Given the context and the audience for
"Perspectives on an Evolving Creation," I chose to emphasive the first two
points in the opening and closing paragraphs of that chapter.

   So it would be inaccurate to characterize my position exclusively (or
even primarily) in terms of the first two points above. HOWEVER, it would
be OK, _if_ one had the right context and/or the right caveats, to say
that I support the first two points (and even to quote me). From my
experience with Craig, I trust him to get the right context and caveats.

==========================

Regarding Craig's initial post:

> With the current state of knowledge it seems impossible to know with
> certainty, so instead of criticizing either type of creation -- totally
> natural or with some miraculous-appearing divine action -- as being
> "less worthy of God" it seems wise to adopt a humble attitude. Each of
> us should admit, like Job, that "surely I speak of things I do not
> understand, things too wonderful for me to know" and decide that either
> way -- whether it happened with one mode of action or two -- God's plan
> for design-and-creation was wonderful and is worthy of our praise.
> Therefore, a proponent of old-earth creation (or young-earth
> creation) should be willing to praise God for designing a universe that
> was totally self-assembling by natural process, with no formative
> miracles, in case this is how He did it. Similarly, a proponent of
> evolutionary creation should be willing to praise God for using both
> modes of creative action, for cleverly designing nature to produce most
> phenomena without miracles, and for powerfully doing miracles when
> natural process was not sufficient, since this might be the way He did
> it.

  I like it. The only change I would recommend is adding a sentence to
the first paragraph saying something along the lines of: Although we
don't yet know with certainty, it's OK to believe that the scientific
evidence is strongly pointing in one direction or the other, but recognize
that other Christians might disagree with your assessment.

  I think such a statement could be very useful for a lot Christians who
have generally been told pro-YEC (or at least anti-evolution) things in
church, are somewhat aware that science is pointing in a different
direction, are vaguely uncomfortable about this, but haven't given it much
thought. (This describes a lot of North American Christians.)
  I fact, when I talk or write to such audiences, I pretty much spin
things the way Craig did. If you're writing a talk or a website to reach
out to such an audience, I recommend using something like it.
  However, I also think it's unlikely that you'll get many "leaders" in
the debate to agree to it. Most YEC authors, several ID-proponents, and a
few evo-creationists have written things opposing that second paragraph.

Loren
Received on Thu Jul 28 15:06:46 2005