>I accept that admonition (below) in the friendly spirit in which it is
>offered. I do need to tell you, however, that my audiences would find it
>hilarious that theistic evolutionists are offering me advice on apologetic
>strategy, on the apparent premise that their own approach is successful in
>converting unbelievers and in keeping Christian college students from
>sliding into naturalistic thinking. Indeed, one of the things those
>audiences have learned is that the thinking behind that phrase "God of the
>gaps" comes straight out of naturalistic metaphysics. See the writings I
>have previously cited for further explanation, and especially Chapter 5 of
>Reason in the Balance.
You seem to imply that a "gapless" creation is more consistent with
atheistic naturalism than Christian theism. You also seem to think that
the truth of our science and theology should be tested based on its
apologetic value. I don't think God cares much about apologetics! It
seems to me our science should strive to know what is actually true about
creation and creation history, and our theology should strive to know what
is true of God - whether that truth is convenient or not. We must take God
as He is not as we would like him to be. I find that non-Christian
scientists are utterly unimpressed by ID type arguments, but are impressed
by lives lived with integrity and Christ-likeness. That is our real
apologetic.
I also assume by this response that you are unwilling to state clearly and
categorically that orthodox Christian theism _does not_ necessitate God's
scientifically detectable action ("fingerprints")in creation.
>This leads me to offer a counter-admonition, in the form of a question.
>Are you sure that thestic evolutionists have been careful not to give the
>impression that God is *forbidden* to "intervene" (i.e., do anything more
>than watch from a distance) in the course of evolutionary history?
This reinforces the concern that I and many other Christians have about
your position. A Biblical understanding of God's providential action in
creation could not be farther from "watching from a distance." If you
understand God's action through secondary cause-and-effect processes in
this way, then there is indeed a major theological problem. God is in
complete control of _all_ natural processes and in all events in human
history.
It has been emphatically stated by "theistic evolutionists" that God is
free to do whatever is consistent with His character.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/