Re: [asa] TE/EC Response

Cameron

Thank you in turn for your thoughtful response, and for directing me to
Alice Meynell's poem. It was quite a surprise to me earlier in life to
discover the exploratory and insightful visions like this in poetry and
literature, visions of things that I had previously thought were only
the domain of science and science fiction. It was the same sort of naive
surprise I experienced early on when an engineer friend of mine said his
farmer father had taught him never to change two influential factors at
once. At the time, I thought that sort of thinking took place only in
the domain of engineering and science!

It is indeed no accident or isolated incident that each people group
refers to themselves mythically as some form of "The People", and have a
creation story that centers on themselves. It's perhaps a worthwhile
action to ponder that consequential aspect of our "story".

There is no doubt that the perspective I sketched does pose some
challenges to mainstream Christian thought, but not necessarily
traditional Christian thought. But one may also view "tradition" though
more than one set of glasses. Our inclination is to think of tradition
as that which bounds and preserves truth in thought and practice
throughout time. But the notion in play for most Christians is probably
more like a particular, fairly static snapshot of "today's" vision
(basically a matter of choice) of Christianity, oblivious to much of the
rich and illuminating range of thought, understandings and passions that
have characterized Christianity over the long haul. I liked your
reference to Howard Van Til's having "...abandoned the restraints of
traditional Christian belief."

Thanks again for your thoughtful response, and the poem!

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Cameron Wybrow wrote:
> 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.
>
>

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 20:29:37 2009