Re: [asa] Cosmologial vs. Biological Design

At 11:06 AM 10/4/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>"... The point is not so much that there are
>gaps in our understanding of how naturalistic
>processes alone could result in the finely-tuned
>cosmological constant or in the emergence of
>human mind and morality, but that, even if we
>were to understand all those naturalistic
>processes completely, the extraordinarily low
>probability of how they played out suggests an
>intelligent purpose beyond mere chance. But the
>same could be said of biological design
>arguments such as the argument from irreducible
>complexity. And even the
>probabilistic-teleological argument itself is a
>sort of gap argument -- we can't conceive of how
>something of such a low probability could have
>occurred in nature, so we fill in our inability
>to grasp that happenstance with God. ..." ~ David

@ I like what Alister McGrath says here: "There
is thus a fracture within creation. Fallen human
nature can only reflect on a fallen creation. " ~ Janice

More:

[snip] "......Through the grace of God, the creation points to its Creator.

Through the generosity of God, we have been left
with a latent memory of him, capable of stirring
us toward a fuller recollection of him.

Although there is a fracture between the ideal
and the empirical, between the realms of fallen
and redeemed creation, the memory of that
connection lives on, along with the intimation of
its restoration through redemption. .....

a. There is a limit to what human reason can
discern about God by an appeal to nature. Sin
brings with it a propensity for distortion, by
which God's revelation in creation is easily
changed into an idol of our own making.

The egocentricity of human sin, grounded in the
fallen human will, expresses itself in the fatal
wish of fallen humanity to create God in its own
image and likeness, rather than to respond
obediently to the self-revelation of God.

This disobedience is without excuse (Rom. 1:18–2:16).

Yet this flagrant abuse of God's revelation in
nature does not discredit a cautious and
responsible appeal to nature as pointing beyond
itself to the one who created it and who will one
day recreate it in glory ­ that is, God himself.

There is thus a fracture within creation. Fallen
human nature can only reflect on a fallen creation.

The fallenness of both the beholder and that
which is beheld thus introduces a twofold distortion.

This is most emphatically not to say that no
knowledge of God may be had. Rather, we must
admit that this knowledge is imperfect, broken,
confused, and darkened, like a cracked mirror or
a misty window. Anything that reveals less than
the complete picture potentially presents a
distorted picture. A “natural knowledge of God”
is thus a distorted knowledge of God. But as a
starting point it has real potential and value.

And responsible Christian apologetics makes no
claim greater than this: That our perceptions of
God from nature can be taken up and transfigured
by the Christian revelation, in Christ and through Scripture.

b. How can the infinite ever be disclosed through
the finite? How can God, who is infinite, reveal
himself through or in nature, which is finite?
Early Christian writers were fond of comparing
our ability to understand God with looking
directly into the midday summer sun. The human
mind can no more cope with God than the human eye
can handle the intense glare and heat of the sun.
So how can a finite and weak creature ever comprehend the Creator?

The most thorough-going response to this question
relates to the “principle of analogy,” an idea
deeply grounded in Scripture and given
sophisticated theological development in the
writings of such individuals as Thomas Aquinas
and John Calvin. The basic idea can be stated as follows.

In creating the world, God leaves his trace upon
it. Just as an artist might sign a painting to
draw attention to the fact that it is his or her
creation, so God has left the imprint of his
nature upon the created order. This is no
historical accident; it is the self-expression of
God in his world. And just as the eye can cope
with the brilliance of the sun by looking at it
through a piece of dark glass, so God wills to
make himself known in a manageable way in his creation. ~ [end excerpt]

Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern
Myths by
<http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Need-Other-Modern-Myths/dp/product-description/0310590914/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Alister%20E.%20McGrath&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank>Alister
E.
<http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Need-Other-Modern-Myths/dp/product-description/0310590914/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Alister%20E.%20McGrath&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank>McGrath

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Need-Other-Modern-Myths/dp/product-description/0310590914

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Alister McGrath is principal of Wycliffe Hall,
Oxford, and professor of historical theology at
Oxford University. Dr. McGrath teaches in the
areas of systematic theology, science and
religion, spirituality, and apologetics. His
writings include Christian Theology: An
Introduction and more academic works such as
Lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 4 11:25:22 2006