Re: [asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

*An important thing to realize in making this distinction is that, whatever
reasonable things might be said in some ID publications or by people like
Dembski, *in actual practice* the ID movement is dominated by "God of the
gaps" theology in this second sense.*
Excellent points, I think. Here's why I think this is so: it has little to
do with any theological problems with TE. All the theological problems
could be overcome. The core issue is hermeneutical: do the "kinds" in
Genesis 1 refer to a fixity of species, and do Gen. 1 and 2 require that
Adam and Eve were separate creations? The NIV Archeological Study Bible,
for example, in the note to Gen. 1:2, states

If ['evolution' is] taken in a historical sense (the theory that everything
now existing has come into its present condition as a result of natural
development, all of it having proceeded by natural causes from one
rudimentary beginning), such a theory is sharply contradicted by the divine
facts revealed in Genesis 1 and 2. It is explicitly stated several times
that plants and animals are to reproduce 'according to their kinds....
Moreover, the creation of Adam is sharply distinguished from other aspects
of creation, and the creation of Eve is descriged as a distinct act of God.
Gen 2:7 (in the Hebrew) clearly teaches that Adam did not exist as an
animate being before he was a man, created after the image of God."

Setting aside why an "archeological" study Bible would contain such a
footnote, *this* is the crux of why ID is so compelling to most
evangelicals. If TE proponents want to gain traction among evangelicals,
general theological arguments, straw man ID knock-downs, and vague
references to "allegory" won't do it. They need to present a solid,
compelling exegesis of Gen. 1 and 2 that accounts for the references to
"kinds" and for the creation of Adam and Eve within an evolutionary
framework.

On 10/9/06, SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In the discussion about the Intelligent Design movement and "god of the
> gaps" arguments, I think there is an important distinction that has only
> been hinted at. Somebody a few years ago on this list (Ted Davis?) made the
> distinction between God-of-the-gaps *arguments* and God-of-the-gaps
> *theology*.
>
> I don't particularly object if the ID movement tries to identify "gaps" as
> useful supplementary arguments for theism. I might disagree about the
> strength of the arguments, and bemoan a large effort going toward Jesus-free
> apologetics, but in principle it is not an unreasonable thing to consider
> the possibility that such "gaps" in natural history might exist and might be
> apologetically helpful if they could be shown convincingly. At its best
> (for example, Dembski in at least some contexts), that is what the ID
> movement is doing and I don't have much problem with it.
>
> But what is much more of a problem is when it turns into God-of-the-gaps
> *theology*, the idea that such "gaps" are not just *apologetically helpful*
> but are *theologically necessary* in order for theism to be true. One sees
> this for example in Phil Johnson, for whom God must leave his "fingerprints
> all over the evidence" in order to be real. In other words, for "God of the
> gaps" proponents in this sense, lack of gaps is equivalent to lack of God.
> This is probably the aspect of the ID movement that Francis Collins had in
> mind when making his criticism, although he didn't explain it very well in
> my opinion. If it is presented such that "gaps" in natural history are
> foundational to faith, one is building unwisely on an insecure foundation as
> advances of science squeeze the "god of the gaps" closer to nonexistence.
>
> An important thing to realize in making this distinction is that, whatever
> reasonable things might be said in some ID publications or by people like
> Dembski, *in actual practice* the ID movement is dominated by "God of the
> gaps" theology in this second sense. For the people in the pews (and many
> pastors), the message of the ID movement is that evolution entails atheism
> (this was the explicit ID position in Kansas, for example, and seems to be
> the position in Discovery Institute propaganda), and that therefore the
> truth of the faith depends on the ID arguments being right. One might hope
> that responsible people like Dembski would denounce this bad theology as
> misuse of their arguments, but it doesn't seem to happen. The main message
> that comes across (especially from prominent advocates like Johnson and
> Wells) is that the "gaps" they want to find are the only thing keeping
> theism from being falsified. It is this abonimable theology that I think
> many of us have in mind when we criticize those who promote a "god of the
> gaps".
>
> Allan
>
> P.S. The question has also been raised whether the "god of the gaps"
> criticism applies to Collins' arguments from cosmology and from human moral
> sense. In part, I think it would depend on whether he is viewing the truth
> of the faith as depending on him being right about these (in which case "god
> of the gaps" criticism would be applicable) or whether they are just viewed
> as useful arguments that, while not foundational, might help people find the
> true foundation in Jesus Christ. From my one reading of Collins' book, it
> is hard to say which of these is the case.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:25:35 -0400