Re: [asa] Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet? - Famous TE's

Bernie said: *If God designed it all upfront and then let it unroll, then I
can see a reason for DNA mistakes causing pain and sickness. If God
directly modifies DNA code as life progresses, then why have all "mistakes"
in there that harm us?*

There is a difference only if you are proposing "front loading" in the
context of open theism or process theology. In a Calvinist-oriented TE of
the sort Terry Gray mentioned, whether it is "front loading" or "progressive
modification," the theodicy problem is the same.

Bernie said: *Also, if God designed everything upfront and then let it
unroll; then the YEC, OEC, and ID people are out of a job, along with many
of the consequences of their theology that is based on their wrong
worldview.*

But there's a significant strand of ID that focuses on "front-loading."

On Dec 18, 2007 2:53 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> Jim A. said:
> " At the end of the day, does it really matter whether we understand
> nature to be actively or passively governed by God?"
>
>
>
> If God designed it all upfront and then let it unroll, then I can see a
> reason for DNA mistakes causing pain and sickness. If God directly modifies
> DNA code as life progresses, then why have all "mistakes" in there that harm
> us?
>
>
>
> Also, if God designed everything upfront and then let it unroll; then the
> YEC, OEC, and ID people are out of a job, along with many of the
> consequences of their theology that is based on their wrong worldview.
> However, if creation can't be unrolled from the start, then the YEC, OEC,
> and ID'ers (and TE's) have a job in trying to figure out how God did design
> over time.
>
>
>
> Why does this matter? I think it comes into play big time if you want to
> present the gospel to intellectuals… to get the story straight. So I think
> there are practical implications from answering your question.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:30 AM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet? - Famous
> TE's
>
>
>
> This seems unnecessarily limiting to me with respect to Howard's
>
> position, as if God's only option (or at least a primary one) for
>
> interacting with Creation is the guidance of its physical development
>
> trajectory. But there are other dimensions to human existence and
>
> interaction that transcend the mere physical. Are these not more the
>
> focus of the wisdom and admonition of Scripture, and would not such
>
> interactions be inconsistent with a deist position?
>
>
>
> Another TE view might be that the Big Bang and subsequent physical
>
> development is a relatively straightforward and simple (in God's terms)
>
> aspect of Creation, declared "Good", and not requiring any sustaining
>
> action (a la a deist sensibility). It operates consistently and
>
> predictably, sufficiently so to be modeled by a few fairly
>
> simply-expressed "laws". But it is not deism if awareness, purposeful
>
> and discretionary mobility, ration, communication, abstraction,
>
> imagination, and free will are more the Creational objective than their
>
> host "flower bed". It just seems that this domain is much more
>
> interesting, unpredictable, and amenable to meaningful Creator
>
> interaction and shaping than the much more predictable and repetitious
>
> gradual disintegration of a rock or growth of a plant.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, does it really matter whether we understand
>
> nature to be actively or passively governed by God? What really matters
>
> is our doing and being, the dynamics of conducting our life and affairs,
>
> and these essentially transcend the physical.
>
>
>
> This perspective seems simpler and plainer and more transparent than
>
> something that involves undetectable and hidden action. I take as a
>
> lessons of the "Second Book" that God is a deity of revelation, not
>
> obscuration. It would be so very easy for a Creator to make Creation
>
> completely ununderstandable in our constrained and myopic human terms,
>
> but it is not that way. I think that one key lesson to be learned from
>
> Creation about the Creator is that He desires us to discover and learn,
>
> even (or especially?) about Himself. For me, that does not seem
>
> consistent with undetectable and hidden action. But that's just my POV.
>
>
>
> Changing direction a bit -- Perhaps the fundamental reason for
>
> adopting the "everything as under God's providential and governing hand"
>
> position has more to do with sensibilities about answers to prayer than
>
> with evolution?
>
>
>
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
>
>
>
>
> Terry M. Gray wrote:
>
>
>
> > This thread and the "Famous TE" thread has amazed me to some degree.
>
> > Here are a few thoughts.
>
> >
>
> > One view of TE, my own and many other more "Calvinistic" leaning
>
> > folks, and one that I've written about before even recently, sees
>
> > everything as under God's providential and governing hand. So, the
>
> > issue that Bernie raises is answered by saying that evolution (and
>
> > other aspects of creation, including history) are the products of his
>
> > moment by moment plan and implementation of that plan. Yes, this
>
> > leads to a "problem of evil" but not one that Calvinistic theology
>
> > in general doesn't deal with.
>
> >
>
> > Why haven't folks like B.B. Warfield been mentioned as being among
>
> > the famous TE's. My view, which I count as TE, is nearly identical to
>
> > his. i would also include others mentioned in David Livingstone's
>
> > book "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders". Some dispute whether or not
>
> > Warfield was a TE and there does appear to be some ambivalence. See
>
> > the book by Livingstone and Noll that is a collection of Warfield's
>
> > writings on science and scripture. But, by and large, understanding
>
> > God's providence the way I describe in the first paragraph clears the
>
> > way for an evolutionary process that is fully under God's detailed
>
> > control. What happens in this view, that some on the least seem to
>
> > "need" is that you cannot say that the scientific evidence
>
> > necessitates God's involvement. His involvement is relatively
>
> > undetectable and hidden, just as it is for most of his interaction
>
> > with the creation order. In other words, we know of God's involvement
>
> > because of scripture, not because science demands it.
>
> >
>
> > Finally, if Van Till says that God just started it off at the big
>
> > bang--which is a very unnuanced way of putting Van Till's viewpoint--
>
> > then Van Till is a deistic evolutionist. Setting the process up and
>
> > starting it off and then letting it unwind is deism not theism.
>
> >
>
> > TG
>
> >
>
> > On Dec 17, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> 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.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________
>
> > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
>
> > Computer Support Scientist
>
> > Chemistry Department
>
> > Colorado State University
>
> > Fort Collins, CO 80523
>
> > (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 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.
>

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 15:16:14 2007