> > Howard Van Till wrote:
> >
> >>My proposal is that Christians ought to lead with a card from their strong
> >>suit: the historic Christian doctrine of creation. Whatever the universe is
> >>and is capable of doing must be seen as a "gift of being" from the Creator.
> >>In the context of seeing the universe as a creation, every one of its
> >>resources, potentialities, and capabilities can then be experienced as a
> >>manifestation of the Creator's creativity and generosity. Instead of
> looking
> >>for evidence of gifts withheld (that is, looking for things that the
> >>creation is unable to do) Christians can celebrate every formational
> >>capability that the sciences uncover. The essence of God's creative action
> >>is not in occasional form-imposing interventions, but in the giving of
> being
> >>to a creation fully capable of accomplishing the Creator's intentions for
> >>its formational history. Where is there evidence of God's creative
> activity?
> >>Everywhere!
Indeed! Think about how significant it is that science agrees with our
Judeo-Christian notion that the earth and its biodiversity had a
beginning. Other early "creation" stories were not so strong on this point.
>Bryan Cross responded:
>
> > I agree that we should praise the Creator for the greatness of
> creation. You
> > rightly affirm the importance of the doctrine of creation, and how that
> ought
>to
> > affect our approach to nature. The problem line for me is "fully capable of
> > accomplishing the Creator's intentions for its formational history."
> How could
>one
> > know this, or be justified in asserting it?
>
>To say it as carefully as I can, I neither claim to have a knock-down,
>irrefutable argument for the truth of this (whether on the basis of the
>doctrine of creation or any other basis) nor do I think that by asserting
>it, it thereby becomes true. What I do wish to say as candidly as possible
>is that on the basis of both scientific and theological considerations I
>find this proposal to be highly probable. You are free to disagree and to
>adopt the concept of a less than fully gifted creation with gaps in its
>formational economy. The majority of the evangelical Christian community
>will be on your team.
Let me reiterate what Howard said here. It's not that creation MUST be
this way. The proposal is highly probable because it is consistent with the
HUGE amount of data and knowledge that natural science has generated over
the last century and more, AND it is also consistent with good Christian
doctrine. Competing ideas (such as that implied by ID) as yet have no
positive scientific evidence to support it, and very unclear theological
bases. Until ID inference truly generates serious and testable hypotheses
that bear up under investigation, then this alternative should remain at
the sidelines. That is, ID is not yet even worth mentioning in curricula.
By their fruit shall you know them.
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 18:00:43 EDT