RE: [asa] (Christian Evolutionist) Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet?

John said:
" The term Christian Evolution adds nothing more than TE already denotes and it could be argued that it takes something away by excluding other religions that also believe in a creator. As I have mentioned on this list before, a friend of mine coined the term Bioanthropic Principle to refer to this "nature's helper" that we see in evolution that resists explanation when compared to the probabilities. I think this is a profound and even sublime term to describe this concept that is so often misunderstood and leads to so much unnecessary emotion and angst in this debate."

The reason why I'm considering the term "Christian Evolution" is because it includes the theology of the gospel, and keeps the belief in miracles (such as changing the water into wine). It is a system that takes all of modern science and believes all of the Bible... the parts of the Bible that can't be rebuffed by science, anyway (I would say a worldwide flood (and Noah's Ark) is out, the tower of Babel is likely out, and I think Adam as a historical figure is out). Basically, it is the proposed correct "Christian" way of harmonizing science and religion. Obviously, since it is complete in science and theology, Jews and Muslims would not accept it.

My point wasn't to debate these ideas, but to find out if anyone ever wrote about it yet, from this perspective. Some people suggested some books, thanks.

Some wanted to debate my first point (evolution can't happen naturally), but that wasn't the point of the discussion. However, here's a quick response to that:

What I mean, for example, is that DNA will not simply arise by itself (or from RNA or from proteins, etc.) because of naturalistic chemical properties. That is my viewpoint so far. But I am glad that researchers are still working on it and wish them luck. I may be wrong, and don't have objections if they can prove that DNA can be developed naturally. It is just that I don't think it can, and want to build my theology on the best available evidence.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:28 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; 'Whorton, Mark S. (MSFC-EV42)'
Subject: RE: [asa] Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet?

This in my opinion is beginning to get at the real core of the disconnect on

science and faith in the church today and I welcome Bernie's exploration

into this topic.

As we have hashed out and tried to capture on this list many times before,

the mechanism of evolution without some kind of unknown guidance is a an

appeal to faith tantamount to multiverses and just as intellectually

dishonest.

Everybody agrees that the observed mechanisms of evolution today are wide

and varied and include everything from chromosome fusion to endosymbiosis to

lateral gene transfer to viral infection of sex cells to single point

mutations and all together they contribute to "endless forms most

beautiful".

Further the long line of extinct species show that there was definitely a

component of randomness in this entire process that were more fortunate for

some rather than others.

However no one rationally believes that all this came about a-theistically

without some kind of mysterious process that somehow underpins it all and

was the origin of the information and the language that translates it as

well as the near miraculous processes that guide it still today. From the

other thread, there are many different interpretations on who this embedded

mysterious force is attributed to and it ranges from the special

intervention of YEC, OEC and ID to divinely created naturalistic process of

TE to some other natural intelligence like Davies to just a lucky

materialistic improbability like Dawkins.

But the one thing in common between all these positions is that they all

acknowledge that the YEC James Perloff's argument of a "tornado in a

junkyard" is valid and therefore evolution has to be supplemented with

magical properties that evolved stepwise to account for the miraculous

improbabilities it overcame. And even if we accept complete randomness in

the variation and natural selection to explain the survival of the fittest,

the YEC's critique of that not explaining "arrival of the fittest" remains

valid as well.

Endowing evolution with these magical properties is fine as long as we are

honest about them and their existence. Even today as a simple example would

the mechanism of metabolism in the cell. How do those molecules know how to

traverse the entire distances of the cell and find each other and assemble

just so at just the right location on the rapid timebase that they do? This

is just a naïve simplistic example that doesn't scratch the surface of the

true complexity in the cell and even Dawkins concedes life is very

improbable, but he offsets that improbability to appealing to some set of

magic properties that are built in to evolution and even though they are

unknown he knows they were not from God.

Where ID's fail in their attempt to influence the culture for good is that

they rightly see the dishonesty in Dawkins position but they wrongly suggest

that the correct alternative is special creation. The true solution to this

problem (besides the theological baggage) is a synthesis of the valid

challenges to atheistic naturalism that ID has surfaced with the observed

processes of natural evolution and leaving the placeholder of the unknown

processes as a logical and rational deduction of the immanence of God.

The term Christian Evolution adds nothing more than TE already denotes and

it could be argued that it takes something away by excluding other religions

that also believe in a creator. As I have mentioned on this list before, a

friend of mine coined the term Bioanthropic Principle to refer to this

"nature's helper" that we see in evolution that resists explanation when

compared to the probabilities. I think this is a profound and even sublime

term to describe this concept that is so often misunderstood and leads to so

much unnecessary emotion and angst in this debate.

If we made an attempt to use a qualifier on evolution such as this and OEC's

and ID'ers didn't think that TE's were compromising by accepting the

dishonest definition of Dawkins, then that would go a long wat to diffusing

the tension between the two camps. The first step though is identifying this

and making this distinction in the collective church mind. This is a meme

that needs to be replicated.

As far as the theodicy question, that is easily resolved with an

understanding of the fall of Satan preceding the creation of the entire

physical universe and of Rev 18 where this is declared by the "Lamb slain

from the foundations of the world". Our entire existence is not for us but

for God's quest of cosmic justice and to avenge Satan. That also explains

why we see the endtimes played out with a test for the true believers who

resist worshipping the beast even under financial and economic duress and

persecution, even though the beast has been given control over all the world

to make people worship him.

He will see that it will be a hollow victory when all he can get to worship

them are the ones whose worship is for sale are not valuable enough to them

to suffer violence over and this will be the lesson that God intended him to

learn and why he created the universe and us in the first place and then

Satan will be judged after being shown the error of his ways. Not

understanding this if the error of the YECs who insist Eden had to be

perfect and no death before the fall but to TE's who recognize nature was

red in tooth and claw from the beginning, all the imperfect design arguments

are easy.

Bernie, I hope you continue to develop this line of thought and help draw

this distinction about the differing definitions of evolution out there and

the theodicy question as well. I think the time is right in the church and I

share your evangelistic zeal to get it to them.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On

Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:03 PM

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: [asa] Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet?

Hi all-

 Does anyone know of a book that someone has written that basically

explains that God uses evolution as his design means? I mean, that God

is actively engaged in messing with DNA code as a programmer writing

computer code, not simply just starting it all off at the big bang, as

Howard Van Till would say. I'm thinking of a combination of Intelligent

Design (not ID as it is now) with Evolution. Basically, the conclusion

is drawn from:

1. Evolution is too unlikely as to have happened naturally (ex.

anthropic principle & origin of life mysteries).

2. Genome evidence shows evolution happened (ex. pseudogenes).

3. Therefore, evolution happened supernaturally.

 I would call the position "Christian Evolution," and a follower a

"Christian Evolutionist." It is the Christian faith combined with

evolution... I hope that isn't syncretistic.

 Atheists may say that "evolution is an unguided process of creating

more complex life-forms from simpler," but the Christian Evolutionist

can say it is the "guided" process. Then a tough question would be "if

God is guiding it, then why is there so much disease and bad genes?"

Good one.

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 Tue Dec 18 14:35:13 2007