Re: Darwin quote

From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 10:37:22 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: A "God" Part of the Brain?"

    Howard wrote;

    > 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.

    I agree, but this is still, in my mind, secondary to addressing the
    theological concerns.

    >
    > 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).

    I agree that looking for THE correct answer to our modern scientific
    questions in
    the biblical text is not appropriate. In the realm of ethics as well,
    answers to specific
    problems are commonly not given. Even many of our theological
    questions are
    not given unambiguous answers. Rather, scripture presents the
    incarnate Christ
    into whose image we are to be conformed. We as fallen humans want
    simple,
    direct, right or wrong, yes or no, answers to our questions. But we
    are given instead
    a call to holiness and the word made flesh. I believe that this
    intolerance for ambiguity
    and uncertainty is another very important aspect of the problem. One
    thing that I see
    repeatedly is people's great reluctance to accept uncertainty and their
    fear of doubt.
      I think that we all deal with this at some level.

    However, I believe that it is entirely possible and appropriate to view
    scripture as
    authoritative, while recognizing that it still does not give specific
    unambiguous answers
    to many of the questions that we really want to know the answers to.
    It has also been
      stated before on this forum, that we must always recognize the
    humanness of the
    theological as well as the scientific enterprise. But this again does
    not necessitate
    that the authority of scripture be rejected - just that it proper use
    and purpose be recognized.

    Thank you Howard, as always, for your clear and pointed exposure of the
    issues.

    Keith

    Keith B. Miller
    Research Assistant Professor
    Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
    785-532-2250
    http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 10:46:02 EDT