> The bottom line is that atheists make the following claim:
>
> The evidence from the natural realm shows that no supernatural
> "creator" had any active role in the development of life. This
> means that there is no God and we should behave accordingly.
That is a very good summary of the arguments put forward by many atheists!
> Theistic evolutionists (presumably) agree with the first proposition, but
> disagree with the second. I disagree with both propositions. In fact,
> I believe the deficiencies in naturalistic explanations for the origin of
> life suggest the existence of a divine creator and I argue in favor of
> this position.
Your last sentence summarizes, very well, the traditional (and
appropriate) progressive-creationist response.
I would like to offer one small but (IMO) important correction on the part
of theistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists believe that
The evidence from the natural realm shows that the Creator played
THE SAME ROLE in the development of life as he did in the development
of the universe's physical forms. (e.g. heavier elements, galaxies,
stars, planets, earth's geological features, etc.)
(The distinction turns on this point: what sort of ideas you invest into
the phrase, "active role." For example, would you say that God plays an
"active role" in present-day phenomena such as fetal development,
microevolution, the weather, and ecological maintenance?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, there is no difference between | Loren Haarsma
theory and practice, but in practice | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
there is a great deal of difference. |