Re: [asa] RE: Conway Morris-- Boyle Lecture : was YEC and IDarguments

I thank Ted for his contribution from Polkinghorne's view, which some refer
to as a "theology of nature" rather than a "natural theology." I am
persuaded that this approach is a much more meanful way of reflecting on the
universe as creation and the God we believe in as the Creator.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; "Charles Austerberry"
<cfauster@creighton.edu>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Conway Morris-- Boyle Lecture : was YEC and
IDarguments

>>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 10/25/06 10:15 AM >>>writes:
>
> Thank you for these links. Denis Alexander's materials are very helpful
> in
> clarifying what he calls a modest natural theology from some of the
> stronger
> claims of ID.
>
> Ted comments:
> It is not difficult to hear behind Denis' footsteps those of John
> Polkinghorne. He is probably the best and certainly the most eloquent
> advocate today of "a new form of natural theology," which "differs from
> the
> old-style natural theology of Anselm and Aquinas by refraining from
> talking
> about 'proofs' of God's existence and by being content with the more
> modest
> role of offering theistic belief as in insightful account of what is going
> on. It differs from the old-style natural theology of William Paley and
> others by basing its arguments not upon particular occurrences (the
> coming-to-be of the eye or life itself), but on the character of the
> physical fabric of the world, which is the necessary ground for the
> possibility of any occurrence (it appeals to cosmic rationality and the
> anthropic form of the laws of nature)." etc. And the etc is equally
> worth
> reading, but you need to buy the book ("Belief in God in an Age of
> Science",
> p. 10) to read it!
>
> I keep emphasizing in various conversations (here and elsewhere) the
> significance of Polkinghorne's writings for the modern dialogue of science
> and religion. He's right in the middle--traidtional, but pushing the
> envelope of tradition on some points (such as open theism and a
> non-historical view of the fall). But traditional (such as genuine divine
> transcendence along with real immanence, a fully incarnational view of
> Jesus
> as fully divine), which is often overlooked by his critics on the right.
> IMO, he understands and appreciates what HPS has done for the modern
> dialogue better than most others, and he values tradition (not for its own
> sake, but for the truth it contains) a lot more than most leaders in that
> dialogue--and for the right reasons.
>
> Ted
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 25 11:14:29 2006