[snip, clip, cut to the chase]
> 2. they "have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific
> naturalism" and
False.
Back in May I posted (for the second time) a list of theological reasons
people give for preferring TE/EC. For newcomers, its in the archives at
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199605/0065.html
I had hoped this would demonstrate that TE/ECs are attempting to
interpret the scientific data within a thoroughly Christian framework.
Let's try a simple example.
Step 1: we use Steve Jones' definitions:
Both "Evolutionary Creation" (EC) and "Progressive Creation" (PC)
believe that God called the universe into being, and developed the
Earth using natural processes in preparation for life.
EC believes these natural processes, under God's normal providential
control, were sufficient to bring about the origin and development of
the living world.
PC fully accepts the same normal providential control of God that EC
does, but PC believes that it was necessary for God to directly and
supernatural intervene at strategic points in biological history, to
bring about the origin and development of the living world.
Step 2: Our hypothetical friend, Mr. E.C. Smith, says, "I accept Steve
Jones' definitions. I prefer EC over PC because it gives a more
consistent hermeneutics of Genesis 1; the text suggests that God was
consistent in his means of bringing about both the physical and the
biological forms."
Now tell me, how has our friend --- who appealed only to your
definitions and one Hermeneutical principle --- accommodated his thinking
to scientific naturalism?
But more importantly, why do you make *general proclamations* on the
thinking process of a whole group of people?
"Christian Democrats have accommodated their thinking to narcissism."
"Christian Republicans have accommodated their thinking to greed."
"ECs have accommodated their thinking to naturalism."
"PCs have accommodated their thinking to deistic god-only-in-the-gaps."
Do you not see how such statements are destructive to dialog and a search
for truth?
----------
> 3. "have adopted TE/EC as a means of reaching their colleagues";
And a thousand TE/ECs stand up and say (or write, or e-mail) in unison,
"We have adopted TE/EC because, after looking at scripture and nature,
we believe it to be true, and we serve a God of truth. We also want to
reach our colleagues, but that is *not* our reason for adopting TE/EC."
Will you stand and call them all self-deluded?
----------
>4. "they have, in effect, abandoned the vast majority of their
>Christian layman brothers to those other Christian scientists-the
>scientific creationists."
As a universal statement, demonstrably false by counter-example. I
can name a few who have spent a great deal of time reaching out to their
Christian layman brothers, and suffered for it.
If you qualify that statement with "many" or perhaps even "most TE/ECs,"
then you have a point.
Have you ever asked TE/ECs why they are reluctant to discuss these
matters with their Christian layman brothers? What answers did you get?
Here are some that I've heard:
-a wish to avoid controversy in the local church over an issue not
central to salvation
-a wish to avoid any risk of weakening someone's faith
-fear that their Christian brothers and sisters will misjudge
their faith and their motives.
The third reason is not a particularly good one for remaining silent,
but unfortunately real. I do think TE/ECs should have more "zeal for
the truth" in confronting scientific creationism in the church.
----------
>"Mediate creationism is a way out of the impasse for scientists who
>are Christians, to: 1. win some of their scientific friends; 2.
>give Christian scientific guidance to their laymen Christian
>brothers; and 3. reconcile the moderate YECs."
>
>Perhaps Loren can say what exactly *is* TE/EC's strategy to
>"reconcile the moderate YECs"?
The TE/EC strategy is identical to your strategy on many
points: discussing hermeneutical principles; pointing out that God
often works through mediate means; pointing out that a scientific
explanation of an event or process does not exclude God. One important
difference is this: if you anathematize the word "evolution" in church,
Christian laymen will continue to encounter it in the secular
literature, and they will not learn to distinguish when it is used in a
proper technical sense from when it is loaded with metaphysical baggage.
A fundamental part of the TE/EC strategy is to teach that distinction.
----------
I will revise and repeat a simple request, and direct it towards all
readers. Challenge the person who disagrees with you to explain their
reasons. Critique those reasons. But do not make blanket proclamations
about their motives or reasoning.
I hope this is not too much to ask.
Loren Haarsma