Re: Fw: Who's Burden of Proof?

Steve,

You might check the archives from a year or go (possibly more) where
there was some discussion of David Griffin's process theology.

Personally, I have very little sympathy with process theology and
believe that it's a form of natural theology consciously divorced
from theology that relies the Biblical text. The God of process
theology is a very different sort of being than the God the scripture
and traditional Christian theology with its roots in scripture.

I am curious about your last sentence though.

>>This would also fit well with a God who creates within natural
>>mutation and selection.

The omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Sovereign God of traditional
Christian theology has no problem with "natural" mutation (even of
the "random" sort) and selection. I think that one of the reasons
that the 19th and early 20th Calvinists were better able to come to
grips with evolution than other Christian theologians was their view
of God and his operation in the universe. See the last few pages of
the chapter by Noll and Livingstone in the *Perspectives on an
Evolving Creation* volume edited by Keith Miller.

Of course, process theology has no problem with natural mutation and
selection, but then process theology doesn't really know the outcome
of the design process, does it?

TG

>(Was off list by mistake)
>
>Dave wrote:
>>Oops! This assumes that God cannot know or cannot control the outcome of
>>what we see as natural selection. I contend that this requires making a
>>god (not God) in our image. If done deliberately, it's idolatry.
>
> This brings up my earlier point about a kenotic designer. I'd appreciate
> some comments from the theologians in the group. One of the consistent
> themes of incarnation schemes is the idea of kenosis. In incarnations God
> accepts, in some fashion, the limitations of mundane reality. Now I
>realize
> that typically kenosis refers the self emptying of the second person of the
> trinity in the incarnation. However, there are examples of non-Christian
> theologies that also posit the self-limitation of the Creator. The most
> current example of this is process theology. Now I think there a major
> problems with the process picture of God, but the view that the Creator is,
> in some sense, self limiting in this reality does have merits in the S/R
> dialog.
>
> My question for Christian theology is whether this idea that God's ongoing
>creative activity could also be considered kenotic as well. This would mean
>that in some respect the results of design changes might not be totally
>known to God at least in some aspect. This would also fit well with a God
>who creates within natural mutation and selection.
>
>
> Steve Petermann

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801