Re: Fw: Who's Burden of Proof?

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

Thanks. I'm already very familiar with Griffin's theology. Process
theology is tauted as removing the problems with science and religion but,
in my view, it doesn't really. The idea of a God who is limited in some
fashion does, however, offer some interesting approaches to divine action
and especially intelligent design. As George pointed out, however, the
process god is not self-limiting but limited by nature. In my view, that is
no God at all. The term God means in its most fundamental sense, ultimate.
Tillich addressed this ultimacy by using the term "Being Itself".

> I am curious about your last sentence though.
>
> >>This would also fit well with a God who creates within natural
> >>mutation and selection.

Perhaps I should clarify what I was driving at. If God is intelligently
active in mutation and selection then a common counter argument for this
being intelligent points to the "failures" in evolution. If God is
intelligently designing, then why are there so many design "failures" in the
evolutionary process. If the analogy of a human designer, in some respects,
also says something about God as designer, then even though good human
designers have great skill in predicting the outcomes of their designs,
sometimes they miss the mark. Sometimes designs don't come out quite the way
they were expected. That's why human designers test things(selection) and
make design changes(mutations). In a way it's part of the fun of design to
see how well you did. If God willing adopts a design position something
like this then evolutionary failures are not really failures but design
attempts that didn't quite work out. I know I'm pushing this analogy, but I
don't think the possibility of a kenotic aspect of the Creator has been
taken seriously enough. The challenge for Christianity, I think, is to see
if there are faithful ways to interpret scripture that also address the
legitimate questions of detractors.

Steve Petermann
Received on Sun Nov 30 10:05:40 2003