Re: RATE Vol. II

> <quote> Design theorists find the "theism" in theistic evolution
> superfluous. Theistic evolution at best includes God as an
> unnecessary rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic account of
> life. As such, theistic evolution violates Occam's razor. Occam's
> razor is a regulative principle for how scientists are supposed to
> do their science. According to this principle, superfluous entities
> are to be rigorously excised from science. Thus, since God is an
> unnecessary rider in our understanding of the natural world,
> theistic evolution ought to dispense with all talk of God outright
> and get rid of the useless adjective "theistic."</quote>

This is a sad statement, and one that emphasizes the conflation that
both YEC and ID make between scientific description and theological
truth. Both try to make science do the heavy lifting that only
theology can do.

Theistic evolution (I prefer the term "continuous creation") is NOT
a scientific theory. It is a theological proposition about the
nature of God's creative and sustaining activity in the natural
world. An appeal to God IS unnecessary for the narrow scientific
description of the natural world. But it is also unnecessary to
appeal to God's action when doing auto mechanics. Christian theology
has the much more vital task of making sense of the world and
ourselves in light of the self-revelation of God in Christ. No
amount of physics, biochemistry or geology will get us there. Why do
ID proponents (and YECs) so intensely believe that theology must be
held up on the shoulders of scientific verification?

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Sun May 21 19:19:19 2006