> Second, I wanted to throw in my two cents worth on the theology of TE/EC.
> As I understand it (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken),
> TE is an attempt to reconcile empirical data that (seem to) suggest
> evolution with theistic religious convictions (usually some brand of
> Christianity). In 2 Peter 3:4-7, I see a God who intervenes in dramatic
> ways. Not all the time, or even that frequently. But the Tribulation,
> Millenial Kingdom, and the New Jerusalem will not be ushered in with
> natural laws that govern the universe. Any reading of Revelation that
> produces any other view employs a hermeneutic even more twisted than the
> one alleged by Denis. Yet Peter clearly sees God working in creation and
> in the Flood in the same way as He will in the End Times.
>
> So I have a question: How does the picture of God portrayed here fit with
> the oft-expressed idea that God "created" the world through the laws that
> ordinarily govern the universe (I hope I'm not the only one who sees a
> tension here)?
"Creation" is more than "assembly." Creation involves (1) conception and
planning; and (2) acquisition of raw materials (_de_novo_ creation of the
universe); as well as (3) assembly of that material into new forms.
So TE/ECs also see God _creating_ the earth and lifeforms by supernatural
intervention. The question is whether or not the laws of physics and
biology, which God ordained, necessitated supernatural intervention for
the _assembly_ of those forms.
Whether God accomplished that assembly by natural or supernatural means,
certainly the conception/planning and the _de_novo_ creation of raw
materials were supernatural. In the same way, some of the final
"disassembly" of this creation might happen by "natural" means, but
certainly the complete destruction (annihilation) of this cretion and
ushering in of the new heavens and new earth will require supernatural
means.
God has given us means to study how his creation works. It may surprise
us to discover that God could have used natural means, rather than
supernatural, to assemble the stars, planets, the heavy elements necessary
for life, and the earth's atmosphere, ocean, and dry land. (I know it
surprised me!) But we should be open to the possibility, because the
language of Genesis 1 is open to both possibilities.
-----------------------
> Second, with the clear ability and willingness of God to
> intervene in dramatic ways, can we safely assume that the natural processes
> we see at work in the world today are the same ones that were at work for
> 15-20 billion years? Such a claim seems rather arrogant on our part.
Yes, it would be arrogant to make that claim _prior_ to doing any
investigation. God could have changed the way natural processes work at
some time in the past. If he did so, we should probably see evidence for
it, since we examine the universe's history whenever we study rocks or the
light from distant stars. So far, we have not found any such evidence. I
don't think it's arrogant to make such a claim _after_ investigation. If
God did change the way natural processes work in the past, he did it so
subtly as to be undetectable by us. As someone on another forum once put
it, "If God went to all that trouble, the least we can do is go along with
it." :-)
--------------------------
> Third, in response to previous comments on this Reflector about the skewed
> hermenutic by theological lightweights such as Johnson (and I guess many of
> us on the Reflector, too), I wanted to throw in a quote to generate some
> further discussion. Wayne Grudem teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
> School and is one of the sharpest Reformed theologians in North America, so
> I don't think he counts as a theological lightweight. He here quotes Davis
> A Young and Louis Berkhof (neither of them are/were exactly dull-witted,
> either). Please do not respond with comments about neither of the works
> Grudem cites here not being up-to-date; they speak on theology, not
> "empirical evidence":
>
> "It seems appropriate to conclude in the words of geologist Davis A. Young,
> 'The position of theistic evolutionism as expressed by some of its
> proponents is not a consistently Christian position. It is not a truly
> biblical position, for it is based in part on principles that are imported
> into Christianity.'* According to Louis Berkhof 'theistic evolution is
> really a child of embarrassmet, which calls God in at periodic intervals to
> help nature over the chasms that yawn at her feet. It is neither the
> biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of evolution.'"**
> (Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. p.
> 279). (*Young, Davis A. Creation and the Flood. Grand Rapids: Baker,
> 1977. p. 38) (**Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids:
> Baker, 1979. pp. 139-140. Original--Eerdmens, 1932).
I don't disagree that "The position of theistic evolutionism AS EXPRESSED
BY *SOME* OF ITS PROPONENTS is not a consistently Christian position."
The same could be said for progressive creationism. The same could be
said for young-earth creationism.
Let's not worry too much about straw-men versions of theistic evolution,
or versions of theistic evolution which come out of liberal theological
camps. I'm much more interested in TE/EC as it is advocated in this group
and by other theologically "conservative" scholars.
----------
Looking forward to more good questions. (If you're not careful, you might
get some tossed back at you. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing more exciting than science. You get |
all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing | Loren Haarsma
down numbers, paying attention. Science has it all!" | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Principal Skinner (_The_Simpsons_) |