Re: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins

Thank you Wayne for your careful reply, which does indeed help to clarify in response to the question I asked.
   
  Yes, I agree with your assessment that "biological evolution...(to the best of our understanding) is true." This 'truth' is because the vast majority of biologists accept biolgical evolution - i.e. by fiat of the field's performers. However, I would add the qualifier 'more or less true' simply because no scientific theories are perfect or invulnerable to being superceded. But this is rather obvious, especially after the contribution of philosophy of science.
   
  Likewise, the following seems generally acceptable: "So, for example, to say that "God used evolution by natural selection" or even somehow (though we can't explain how), "God directed evolution by natural selection", these are all basically OK in as much as they appear to be true."
   
  My trouble with the phrase 'God used evolution by NS' is simply that it raises up 'evolution' to sound as if God needed/needs it. Would it be the same thing to say that 'God makes (/causes) nature (to) change-over-time' or 'God uses changes-over-time in selecting natural effects?'
   
  I'm a bit unimpressed still by the sloppy metaphor (as Darwin himself admitted) of 'natural selection' (though not the strongly defined concept it seems most at ASA refer to in community) especially since in my scientific/scholarly field it contrasts directly with 'human selection.' Selection to me implies agency which many theories of evolution seem to be lacking.
   
  My request to Wayne would be to help keep the mystery alive in natural science, since the 'discovery,' insight or 'eureka' moment is not simply a result of mechanistic or material forces, but includes the human factor in all circumstances. The hermeneutic influence in the scientific enterprise should not be pushed aside for pseudo-objectivistic perspectivism.
   
  In Waynes final paragraph, his writing gets at what concerns me most about theistic evolution (though, let me add that I have been pleasantly impressed by the balanced approach taken by many on this list who are TE's.). He writes: "But the reverse way, "God is evolution" or "evolution is God" sound even a bit idolatrous: it borders on worshiping the creation instead of than the creator. These views would be "shrouding scientific words" and introducing "their own particular interpretations of God's creation"."

  I hope that is what we will all be careful not to do as we keep our theology somehow integrative with science and at the same time elevated above the uncertainty between evolutionism (especially the neo-Darwinian variety) and a life of faith and reason, seeking understanding.
   
  Arago
  

Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
  Gregory Arago asked:

  p.s. Wayne, still curious about your further elaboration on this statement:
"It depends. If you examine the world and see that evolution is a process that appears to occur, and then try to reconcile that with what is revealed in scripture, then you are accepting it as a fact that you must grapple with in your theology. / If evolution becomes your "theology", then this charge could possibly stick."

What could it mean - 'if evolution becomes your theology'?

Perhaps it was rather flippant of me. I was looking at the converse
direction and thought this looked strange enough to make clear
that the converse doesn't follow.

Your post was on cosmological evolution and your question was
on "theistic theories of cosmological evolution" and whether such
viewpoints shroud themselves technobabble and make particular
interpretations of God's creation.

My framework is more
from biological evolution which (to the best of our understanding)
is true. I am undecided on the matter of multiple universes at this
point, and even less sure what to think of multiple universes under
a sort of "evolution". However, supposing for a moment that we
really find evidence of this, it would require that we take it into account
in our theology. It is in fact important to consider that the there are
multiple universes. It may be an artifice that some grasp for to evade
admitting the G-word, but it could be that it is true. We would want
as Christians to know what is true, and we would not compromise
for anything less. So in as much as we have time, resource, and energy
to do so, we still need to examine these matters with honest open minds.

So, for example, to say that "God used evolution by natural selection"
or even somehow (though we can't explain how), "God directed evolution
by natural selection", these are all basically OK in as much as they appear
to be true. That is just accepting that God is God, and if God
chose to do it that way, what are we going to say. We're the
clay and he is the potter. Does the pot complain to the potter
about how he(she) was made?

This is taking what is known, and trying to understand it the context
of scripture.

But the reverse way, "God is evolution" or "evolution is God"
sound even a bit idolatrous: it borders on worshiping the creation
instead of than the creator. These views would be "shrouding
scientific words" and introducing "their own particular interpretations
of God's creation".

Maybe that is a bit more clear.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 5 14:10:43 2007