Re: [asa] Collins' book is reviewed by the Arizona Origins

David pointed out,

> In this regard, there's no principled difference theologically between a
> "punctuated equilibrium" OEC or ID theory and theistic evolution.
>
>
>

OK, perhaps claiming to be better is largely posturing.

Still, if we divorce ourselves from the science entirely
and just argue theology, wouldn't that also mean that
the YEC model is just as good as the above?

What then makes YEC bad theology? I'd always thought
it was because the YEC position (as science) becomes
increasingly convoluted when you struggle to tie the whole
thing together into a coherent model that makes sense.

ID does have at least a rational component as a kind of
forensic science. However, the "who done it?" in the
story does not seem to leave a lot of tracks behind, so
it doesn't appear to be a good way to look for such
evidence. So maybe "bad theology" is not entirely
right in the case of ID. But it doesn't hit well on
the way that God is interacting with the world either.

So I grant, maybe this is more posturing on my part, but
it's the connection with the real world where I would
tend to weigh the merits of a theology.

By the way, I do sense some
limitations. For example, the world appears random, and
Calvin often makes a big point of looking to providence
and trusting in the Lord. Were we to observe the world as
the atheists do, we would say there is no God and proof
of that lies in the randomness. But we would say, as the
faithful, that these are mere appearances, and God knows
the course of things. So I grant that there are paradoxes
in trying to connect theology to the real world also. But
it still seems like we would want to have the best coherent
model we could find.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 9 09:39:44 2006