On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:55:36 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>Stephen Jones described his perception of TE:
>SJ>TE seems to want to minimise God's direct intervention, whereas YEC
>and PC wish to maximise it. [...]
>Most if not all the TE's on the Reflector seem to be less than
>enthusiatic about "God intervening in nature at strategic points".
>Where they do concede it, it seems to be only the bare minimum.
>Every effort is made to give evolution the benefit of the doubt and
>downplay creation. I can only conclude it is due to a "modern-day
>spirit of naturalism".
LH>Alternative: I conclude that TE reasoning is due to ...
>A desire for a consistent hermeneutics of Genesis 1.
>A desire for a consistent understanding of God's creational and
> providential interaction with the world.
>A desire to understand of the proper scope and role of "naturalistic
> knowledge" within a theistic world-view.
>A desire for a consistent understanding of God's "design" in nature.
>A desire for a consistent understanding of the role of God's miracles
> in history.
>A desire to get as far away as necessary from the theological problems
> of "apparent age" and "false history."
>A desire to fully appreciate the theological import of God's ability to
> achieve his purposes through natural mechanisms.
>A desire to see as much beauty and grandeur in creation as possible.
PC would share these concerns. I think the key is in your use of
"consistent". I would argue that TE is *inconsistent*, in that it
accepts that God has intervened in biological history at least twice,
(eg. the origin of life and the origin of man), but denies that God
intervened more than that (eg. in the origin of higher taxa, etc).
PC is more consistent in that it believes that same interventionist
pattern of God's involvement in biological history applied throughout.
DE is consistent in that it would (in its purest form) believe that
God set up the initial conditions and then did not intervene at
all. IMHO TE is an unstable half-way house between DE and PC.
LH>These are the sorts of ideas which motivate TE's. You may argue
>that PC does a better job on those points. I believe that TE does.
>I will expand upon these points in another post, "Theological reasons
>for macroevolution." I hope that post will give ample reason for at
>least ENTERTAINING an alternative conclusion to the one you presently
>hold.
I have already said that I could believe TE if it fitted the Biblical
and scientific facts better. But IMHO it does neither.
LH>Your use of the phrase, "... give evolution the benefit of the
>doubt and downplay creation" presupposes that the two concepts are
>antagonistic. They are not.
I agree that "evolution" and "creation" are not necessarily
anatagonistic. God could have used an evolutionary process in
creating and developing the living world.
Perhaps I should have said give *natural processes* the benefit of the
doubt and downplay *supernatural intervention"?
LH>Belief that macroevolution is probably true is NOT the "spirit of
>Naturalism" because (1) We are not talking about minimizing God's
>supernatural intervention in GENERAL; we are talking about one PARTICULAR
>area: biological history. (2) We are not talking about minimizing God's
>creativity or his interaction with the world, we are debating particulars
>about the METHODS he used. (3) The theological and philosophical
>motivations which TE's offer are from within Christian tradition.
Sorry Loren, but "biological history" is the "one PARTICULAR area"
where PC's believe that there was "supernatural intervention". There
is no real argument between PC and TE about God's intervention in
non-biological history, mainly because the Bible says very little
about that area.
But at least you concede that your *are* "talking about minimizing
God's supernatural intervention in...biological history".
I agree that "the theological and philosophical motivations which TE's
offer are from within Christian tradition", but then not everything
that is "from within Christian tradition" is Biblical! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------