Re: [asa] Re: on TE and PT, a response to Gregory

Biological evolution tells us about how lineages of organisms change
over time. As such, all it definitely tells us about God is that His
involvement in the process of generating new kinds of organisms
produces physical patterns resembling those expected based on
biological evolution.

Claims that biological evolution implies limits on God's control over
the process are based on additional assumptions, such as the idea that
God cannot fully control things that to us seem random, or that He
would not allow something to happen that we don't like if He were able
to prevent it. (Of course, biological evolution can't even tell if
God exists or if such an entity ought to be called he, she, it, them,
etc.)

Process theology, with its preoccupation with theodicy, seems to be
working from the latter assumption. The application to biological
evolution is highly problematic, because it depends on one's
assumptions about the moral status of animals. Ironically, a process
view that invoked biological evolution as too violent and wasteful to
be compatible with a good, omnipotent God would echo the
antievolutionary arguments about death before the Fall. I'm not sure
how much process theology invokes perceived theodicy issues relating
to animals as opposed to humans.

Another significant problem is that theodicy assumes that we are
correct in thinking that we know something else would have been
better. I don't mean to belittle the issue-it's certainly hard to see
how everything is working for good in many situations. However, God
appears to value several things more highly than our comfort.
Relating to both biological evolution, it certainly seems as though
diversity was a higher value than safety. God does not merely have an
inordinate fondness for beetles-there are vast numbers of all sorts of
things with little direct relevance to humans. Likewise, disparate
gifts, ethnicities, social groups, etc are to be joined together in a
church, rather than a bunch of nearly identical people who get along
because they have few differences.

If we focus on certain aspects of the physical world, we can get
fairly depressing ideas about what sort of deity would make things
like that (e.g., Ecclesiastes or Dawkins). If we focus on others, we
can get fairly positive ideas (e.g., considering the care for the
lilies or the birds). Other aspects could be taken either way; e.g.,
the positive view of the sun in Ps. 19 was probably not written during
a severe drought. In light of God's self-revelation, we can decide
that certain aspects of creation are readily understood as showing
God's character and others must be assumed, in light of what we know
of God's character, to fit in somehow. (Knowing God's character may
help us figure it out in part.)

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.