Re: agreeing about a mere creation?

    Terry is correct to say that I incompletely (and inaccurately)
characterized the views in their chapter. I also think George is correct
in his criticism of what I said as being too fuzzy, and Loren offered a
good idea for making it more balanced.
    Later, I'll "add a sentence to the first paragraph" of the type Loren
suggests, but my first response to the suggestions (by Terry, George, and
Loren) was writing a new section to follow the two "mere creation"
paragraphs:

    Appropriate Humility
    We should be appropriately humble about God's methods of creation, by
saying in public -- and believing in private, in our hearts and minds --
that "IF God created using another method (differing from the way I think
He created), God is worthy of our praise." But this "if... then..."
humility is compatible with also explaining why we think a particular view
is most likely to be true. We can be humble while we explain -- using
arguments based on theology and science, based on our interpretations of
scripture and nature -- why we think our "if" is more plausible than the
"if" proposed by other views.
    For example, although Haarsma and Gray acknowledge that "the jury is
still out" the main goal of their chapter, and of the preceding chapter by
Gray, is to explain the scientific support for a natural production of
self-organization and increasing complexity. And they close their chapter
by claiming that "it seems most promising -- both scientifically and
theologically -- to study biological complexity expecting to find more
evidence that God designed into it the ability to self-organize."
Similarly, proponents of other views can explain the scientific and
theological support for their views.
    We should respect each other, but respect does not require agreement.
You can respect someone and their views, while vigorously criticizing their
views. If we are searching for truth, we should avoid the intellectual
laziness of postmodern relativism, because for most questions about origins
a skillful use of evidence and logic can be a valuable source of knowledge,
leading to improved understanding.
    For dedicated Christians who care for both people and ideas, the goal
is an appropriate humility, and this requires a balance between two
desirable qualities -- confidence (which if overdeveloped can become rude
arrogance) and humility (which can become timid relativism) -- that are in
tension. But most of us tend to err in the direction of overconfidence in
our own theories, so trying to develop the virtue of modest humility
usually has a beneficial effect.
Received on Thu Jul 28 18:35:08 2005