Re: Darwin quote

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 08:29:15 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Darwin quote"

    >From: Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>

    > It seems that you have put your finger on the real issue - at least for
    > you and
    > many other Christians. That issue is theodicy -- how to understand
    > God's character
    > in light of pain and suffering. I have often stated, that the
    > fundamental issues driving
    > much of the Creation/Evolution debate within the church are theological
    > ones. Until
    > those issues are dealt with forthrightly, arguing about scientific
    > questions is not
    > productive. We must uncover the root theological concerns and deal
    > with those first.

    Keith.

    Agreed, with a few further comments.

    1. It would, however, still be of some value to demonstrate that the
    science-like arguments against the broad concept of evolutionary continuity
    via natural processes (in a God-equipped universe) are unsound and will not
    serve to give meaningful support to interventionist pictures of divine
    creative action.

    2. How deep are people willing to dig to uncover the the "root theological
    concerns" that you suggest need to be addressed? Consider, for example,
    these two levels:

    (a) Continuing to re-examine, re-examine and re-examine the biblical text to
    find out what is THE correct and authoritative biblical teaching regarding
    the formational history of the Creation or the character of divine creative
    action.

    (b) Challenging the presupposition that there is such a thing as THE correct
    and authoritative biblical teaching regarding the formational history of the
    Creation or the character of divine creative action and accepting the
    difficult task of developing a perspective, not by appeal to an ancient
    canon declared to represent divine authority, but by a rational examination
    of a diversity of relevant considerations -- empirical, theological,
    philosophical, historical -- all recognized as the products of thoroughly
    human efforts to make sense of the grand human experience.

    I suggest that (a) has been adequately tried, and has failed. I am
    personally inclined to dig deeper and follow an approach more like (b).

    Howard Van Till



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 08:31:34 EDT