Re: Low view of Creation's gifts

john zimmer (jzimmer@therad.rpslmc.edu)
Fri, 04 Sep 1998 14:26:49 -0500

I agree that Christians discount the operation of God's creativity
through his creation (if that makes sense). I would say that acknowledging
this operation is the key to complementarity. By looking at the
exception - the gap - if you will, one is basically claiming that
reality - or whatever you call what we observe and participate in -
appears incomplete and that a certain element (the divine) is necesary
to complete it. But I think that God is way more sophisticated than
we imagine. The "two books" are textually complete.

The appearance of or desire for incompleteness is an illusion
generated by choosing one "book" over the other. We cannot choose one
or the other. We participate in both.

Ray

At 09:21 AM 9/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Once again I have plowed through a series of postings on the ASA listserve.
>
>To be candid, it was discouraging.
>
>Why? I'll try a brief explanation.
>
>As a Christan I beleive the entire universe to be a Creation, that is,
>something that has been given its 'being' by the Creator-God of whom the
>Scriptures attest. The 'being' of the Creation consists not only in having
>existence and having various properties, but also in having a rich
>diversity of capabilities for action. Whatever atoms, or molecules, or
>cells, or organisms are capable of doing is, in this Christian
>'creationist' perspective, to be celebrated as a gift from God--a symbol of
>God's incomprehensible creativity (in first conceptualizing these
>remarkable gifts) and unlimited generosity (in the giving of all of these
>capabilities).
>
>Against this theological background, I am both puzzled and discouraged by
>the prevalence of anti-evolutionary arguments in this list of the following
>genre:
>
>Evolution could not have occurred because atoms do not have the
>capabilities to accomplish X, or because molecules do not have the
>capabilities to do Y, or cells do not have the capabilities to do Z.
>
>Why are Christians inclined to hold such a low view of the Creation's gifts
>for accomplishing the Creator's intentions for the formational history of
>the Creation? Was the Creator unableor unwilling to so gift it? Did He lack
>the creativity to conceptualize the requisite creaturely capabilities? Was
>He able to do so, but not sufficiently generous? Did he purposely withhold
>a few key gifts so that the Creation would not have the requisite
>capabilities to actualize certain novel forms of life in the course of its
>formational history?
>
>Does anyone think about the theological implications of this concept of the
>character of the Creation's capabilities? Why would Christians expect the
>Creation to have vacancies in its menu of formational capabilities?
>
>Howard van Till
>
>