On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:36:38 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
DT>On 9 Apr 97 at 21:51, Stephen Jones wrote, quoting Erickson:
SJ>"...deistic evolution is perhaps the best way to describe one
>variety of what is generally called theistic evolution. This is the
>view that God began the process of evolution, producing the first
>matter and implanting within the creation the laws which its
>development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process. Then he
>withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so to
>speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created order is free
>of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of everything, but
>only the first living form was directly created. All the rest of
>God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the Creator, the
>ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause.
>Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic
>evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies that
>there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing
>creative process." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985,
>p480)
DT>My contribution is just a plea dor debaters to "hear" what others
>are saying. There may be some deistic evolutionists around, but
>this is hardly relevant to the mainstream debate. As far as I can
>see, the vast majority of Christians who contribute to this list are
>THEISTS. That is, we all believe in the ongoing, sustaining
>government of God over his creation. We all recognise that the
>process of natural selection acting on natural variations is a part
>of this government. We all recognise that these processes have
>ecological significance (preserving the status quo, providing for
>adaptation to changing environments, etc). There are some who
>consider that these processes have creative significance and link
>them to evolutionary explanations of origins. If this is where the
>real divergences of view are to be found, let us focus debate here.
>Deistic evolution is not an issue - unless someone overtly defends
>that view.
The point was that I *was* "hearing what others are saying". We
>believe either that Glenn himself gave two options:
"God directs it or God set it up and let it run. In either event,
God is involved". I pointed out that "God set it up and let it run",
"is *Deistic Evolution", as Erickson defines it:
"...the view that God began the process of evolution, producing
the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws which
its development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process.
Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world...The
progress of the created order is free of direct influence by God"
This sounds very much like the views of some TE/ECs of this
Reflector. As you yourself said, "There may be some deistic
evolutionists around".
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------