RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/21/01 2:04:50 PM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
> << "Perfect fellowship with God the Creator" would mean that no further
> development in the relationship would be possible. That was not the case for
> the
> first humans because:
> 1) The culmination of human fellowship with God comes about through
> the
> Incarnation, which had not yet taken place.
> 2) Such an assumption does assume an essentially static view and thus
> thus is contrary to the belief that time and history are part of God's
> intention
> in creation. >>
>
> By a perfect relationship I meant an ideal one. A perfect relationship is
> not necessarily a static one. It can be a developing one, as you seem to
> acknowledge. A parent may have a perfect relationship with his/her infant
> child, later as a teenager, and still later as a young adult. At each stage
> the relationship changes, and at each stage it can be said to be perfect.
> The operative word here is not "perfect", but rather "developing".
>
> I agree that A&E were not infantile. I'm not sure how I would characterize
> their immaturity. Their behavior as described seemed more adolescent in its
> rebelliousness. But I do not think that we need to place them in some stage
> of human development as we know it today.
>
> <<No, that is not my reason for arguing against the idea of a creation
> already perfect in its beginnings. The value of history as part of creation &
> the incarnational goal of creation are my primary theological motives for
> such an
> argument. It is, of course, strongly supported by what we know of cosmic and
> biological evolution. I would suggest, on the contrary, that there is very
> little biblical basis for the view I'm challenging: You have not given any
> here. Such views are heavily influenced by the Greek idea of a priority of
> being
> over becoming & a desire for a golden age.>>
>
> I will back off the concept of perfection, if it places me in the camp of
> those who hold a static view of creation. I hold a dynamic view of history
> also.
Correspondingly, I will back off from the implication that ideas of the
type you describe _must_ be connected with a static view of creation. But they
often have been.
Perhaps the best thing to say would be that the first humans were in an
"age appropriate" type of relationship with God - which may have meant simply a
kind of numinous awe. They had the potential to develop toward fuller
relationship but instead took the wrong road.
I think some of the confusion involved in the terms "evolution" and
"development" comes from the fact that we often associate the 2d with the ordinary
process of maturation of an _individual_. But here we are talking about not just
an individual or pair of humans but their species. I would certainly not say that
the Bible "teaches" evolution in the sense of modern biological theory, but would
say that the general scientific idea of evolution is quite coherent with the
overall biblical picture of God's intention for creation.
> ..............................
> <<You have missed the point of my criticisms of ID. They are not willing
> to accept the idea that God works in the world through cooperation with
> natural
> processes. I am, & in fact work with a very traditional understanding of
> divine
> action. The processes with which God cooperates are studied all the time by
> scientists. God isn't.>>
>
> Your last sentence does not say anything about the nature of God's
> cooperation. Logically, what is the difference between "God designs" and
> "God cooperates"? I think the first one means, in broad terms, that God
> determines the goals of cosmic and biological processes. What does it mean
> that God cooperates?
Traditional doctrine of providence divide God's activity into
a) preservation of what has been created,
b) cooperation (or concurrence) with the actions of creatures, and
c) governance of creation toward the ends which God intends.
"Design" has to do with c. What actually takes place in the world comes about
through b. I (& I think others on this list critical of ID) don't have a problem
with the idea of "design" but with the claim that it could not be carried out by
God's action through natural processes & must involve some sort of divine
intervention which would (in PJ's infamous words) "leave his fingerprints all
over" things. Cooperation, OTOH, _doesn't_ leave fingerprints all over because
what we observe is the instruments God uses, not (directly) God.
> In my prior note I asked, <<Evolution, if defined, as most biologists do, as
> natural selection, is of all things, not teleological. You have chosen the
> evolutionary route, and yet claim that evolution is *directed*, as I
> understand you. Directed toward what?>>
>
> You responded: <<It is directed toward the uniting of all things with
> Christ - Eph.1:10. Evolution as a scientific theory is not teleological.
> Placed in a larger
> theological context, it can be (depending, of course, on the theology)>>
>
> Your last sentence may be true. However, as soon as one tries to make
> evolution teleological he/she will be rejected by the science establishment.
> Denton tried it in his last book, without even being theistic about it, but
> do you find him being referenced by established biologists?
I am talking about a theological understanding of teleology - i.e., what
can be said about evolution when it is placed in the context of revelation. If
the "science establishment" is critical of that then its members are functioning
as theologians, not scientists. This is not too different from what is done when
we say, e.g., that God created the universe in the big bang. Science can talk
about the big bang but we can speak of it as "creation" only in the light of
revelation. (N.B. I am not arguing for a sharp separation between science and
theology, but there are differences. What we need is more people who are
competent in both.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 24 2001 - 08:00:33 EST