Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?

Gregory Arago wrote:

> What exactly is a TE? This is a great question, David, and one I
> would love to see addressed at ASA. If it is true that ASA is home
> to many of the scientists/scholars who contributed to the volume
> “Perspectives of an Evolving Creation” and if that is the (or a)
> definitive text for the TE (theistic evolution or theological
> evolution) perspective, then it should be an excellent place to
> address this question. Surely, those who hold to TE will be able to
> mention the names of the most prominent TEs in history and point
> out the main ideas that TE represents.

Simply stated, my position is that there is no inherent conflict
between evolutionary theory and a Christian faith with a high view of
scripture. By evolution I mean the theory that all living things on
Earth are descended from a common ancestor through a continuity of
cause-and effect processes. I believe that there are no necessary
breaks or gaps in causal explanations. That is, all transitions in
the history of life are potentially explicable in terms of "natural"
cause-and-effect processes. Evolutionary theory is no mere guess or
hunch, but an extremely well supported explanation of the observed
record of organic change. It has great explanatory power in drawing
together an incredibly wide range of data from many disciplines in an
explanatory framework. It has been very effective in generating
fruitful and testable hypotheses that have driven new discoveries and
advanced our scientific understanding of the history and dynamics of
our living world.

I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it
to communicate. However, simply accepting the truth of the Biblical
writings does not indicate the meaning of those writings. Just as
our observations of the natural world must be interpreted within some
explanatory framework, scripture also must be interpreted. There is
no such thing as an objective reading of scripture. The question for
the Christian is then - What is the best interpretive framework for
any given passage of scripture? I am convinced that the best
interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is a literary one in
which neither time nor chronology are part of the intended message.

Finally, I fully and unhesitatingly accept the doctrine of creation.
God is the Creator of all things and nothing would exist without
God's continually willing it to be. Creation was not merely a past
accomplished act, but rather is a present and continuing reality.
God acts in and through natural processes. The best term for this
view of God's creative activity is "continuous creation." This is a
term used by Jurgen Moltman as well as others. I also believe that
God's existence can be known in the creation through faith. However,
scientific observation provides no proof of the existence of a
creator God, indeed it cannot. Neither does scientific description,
however complete, provide any argument against a Creator. Since God
acts through process, evolution and the theology of creation are
perfectly compatible.

As the above indicates, I prefer the term "Continuous Creation" far
more than "Theistic Evolution." The latter term puts the emphasis on
a particular scientific theory rather than on theology, and is
burdened with a lot of baggage. The critical issue in my mind is
that God's creative action is in and through natural process -- this
seem clear from scripture. Therefore, any scientific description of
natural history (with its focus on natural process) is not in
conflict with a fully orthodox theology of creation. Such
theological views go back to people like B. B Warfield and James
Orr. Understanding what those natural processes are is the task of
science.

Keith Miller

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 1 16:11:07 2007