Re: [asa] TE/EC Response

Jim:

I thank you for reminding me again that there are many varieties of TE. The
variety that you sketch here is indeed different from that put forward by
many here.

I agree with you that if you remove the idea that man is the pre-arranged
target, then the difficulty of arriving specifically at man via "randomness"
vanishes. If the universe is so fecund that it is bound, even by random
processes, to spit out not one but many types of intelligent beings, then
each one of those intelligent races, though themselves the result of
Darwinian processes, is likely, in its religious reflections, to see itself
as the crown and purpose of creation, and in its philosophical reflections
to doubt that it could have got there by chance. Thus, it might be sheer
chance that we are intelligent primates rather than intelligent carnivores
or rodents, and the "progress" towards primates that we think we discern
might be a self-flattering illusion. And there might be other intelligent
races of equal spiritual value elsewhere in the universe, none of them
directly engineered as to time or place or type.

As I say, I agree with you that this is logically possible. However, I
don't think it could be maintained within traditional Christian belief,
which I think does both imply and assert that man is the pre-arranged
target. That does not mean that traditional Christian belief is
unassailable or that non-orthodox forms of Christian belief should not be
considered in relation to evolutionary thinking. But I think one would have
to be clear that one is stepping outside of the frame of tradition in
asserting such a thing. You mentioned Van Til. I do not know his work
first-hand, but I gather that as time went on he more and more frankly
abandoned the restraints of traditional Christian belief as he came out with
ideas like this. I don't say that judgmentally, only descriptively.

As I read your note, I thought of the poem "Christ in the Universe" by Alice
Meynell. It is in many collections of poetry and even of science fiction.
I don't know if it exactly captures the idea you express here, or not, and
it has been a while since I read it, so I can't remember how orthodox its
theology is, but your words made me think of it. Have you read it?

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response

> While this evolution-perspective may be the case with many TEs, it is not
> so for all. The TE position you describe is pretty much anchored to the
> idea that man, in the form and function as we know it, is the single and
> singularly purposed product of the evolutionary processes. That requires
> that either God aimed the evolutionary gun at that target, or guided the
> bullet directly, or influenced the ambient of the bullet-in-flight so as
> to gently(?) guide the bullet to its human-state target. One other posit
> is imply that God is "outside of time" (whatever that means) and therefore
> has some other means of determining the evolutionary trajectory such that
> we humans are the Creational culmination.
>
> Thoese notions seem to be collectively guided by the uniqueness-of-man
> perspective, and man-as-the-ultimate-objective of Creation understanding
> (all referenced to humans as we know them). But there are some who would
> suggest that these notions may ultimately be as quaint as geocentrism and
> flat earth, noting for example that we humans don't seem to be at the
> center of the known universe as would seem to be consonant with this
> creational-objective perspective.
>
> Instead, a Fully Gifted Creation (to use Howard Van Til's language) could
> proceed in reasonable harmony even with the Darwin understanding of
> evolution, by simply removing the constraint that the functioning of the
> universe must by design and/or intent arrive at a sole preconceived
> solution in the form of humanity. In other words, it could evidently
> proceed constructively, productively and interestingly without the
> specifically human form and function (and direction) "in mind" in any way.
>
> Why require that all this "choice" and randomness and hugeness converge on
> just one state solution? Why all the fuss and bother to move all over the
> state map to get to just one particular and quite unlikely terminal state?
> Why not just "poof" it all into existence without all the spatial and
> temporal dynamics that seem to characterize our being and ambience (as
> some of our more literalist brethren would prefer)?
>
> The more I think about it, the more incredulous it seems to me that the
> whole of this mind-bogglingly immense Creation is for the sole purpose of
> accommodating a single trajectory to a singular "solution", ...man. It
> seems excruciatingly limiting (and egotistical) to constrain the intent of
> God in this particular way, though it admittedly puts a strain on our
> imagination to think about the alternative(s). It is humbling too to think
> that there might be/have been/may be other sentient creatures elsewhere,
> who may similarly arrive at the "who" and "why" questions about being.
>
> Now, I am not arguing that this is the way it is. And I respect your use
> of "most". My intent is just to point out that as with other labels, there
> is a tendency to unduly narrow the reality that is collected for
> convenience under a label such as TE.
>
> JimA [Friend of ASA]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 11 03:28:43 2009