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

The parsing of the "mistakes" issue seems to me to be on target. A hard
pill to swallow is the possibility that the proper and designed working
of Creation might have natural consequences as uncomfortable to us as
pain and sickness, or even death (which reasonably would by classified
by affected humans as "evil"). But that is an exquisitely human frame
of valuation which may or may not have anything to do with God's
assessment of Creation as "good". Unless there was an originally created
man who was immortal, then death has always been with us, not only as a
part of Creation, but a critical component thereof. Such immortality has
many problems, including being disputed by the ubiquitous existence of
evolutionary processes; processes which move resolutely and recoverably
toward proliferation of increasing sophistication, ironically and
uniquely enabled by attrition (death). That all seems to me to favor the
"unroll" scenario.

I don't agree that establishing this in some way as fact would put the
YEC, OEC, and ID (etc.) folks out of a job, but it would be troubling
and downright painful for them to make adjustments. Those adjustments
would understandably be slow (and themselves, evolutionary). There would
always be a remainder who would simply stay in denial. [Or maybe that is
a description of the present state of affairs!?]

I agree that the discussion can be important in the regard you suggest.
However in the day we live, given that the agency question is disputed
and unresolvable in absolute terms, I would think the "straight story"
is that there is room for either perspective, accompanied by the
illuminating conversations that accompany further discussions of the
implications.

I do not feel that generous with respect to the ID/creationist campaigns
in the school world wherein "creation science" creates artifical
tensions and contradicts the clarity and coherence evidenced in the
"Second Book's" progressive revelation.

Or so it seemeth to me.

Jim Armstrong [Friend of ASA]

Dehler, Bernie 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 16:11:43 2007