>As I have already indicated, the scientific
>concept of evolution, properly defined, does not entail any idea that
>conflicts with the historic Christian doctrine of creation.
It concerns me that this point is completely ignored, as if it is not
important, by anti-evolution Christians.
The reality is,
>however, that many persons, both within and outside of the Christian
>community, and both within and outside of the scientific community, have
>been led by the rhetoric of the creation/evolution debate to associate the
>word 'evolution' with the worldview of naturalism. That association is, I
>believe, the result of a serious misunderstanding of both 'evolution' and
>'creation.' But even if the association of evolution with naturalism is
>entirely unfounded,
Amazingly, the whole debate would be nonexistent if it weren't for this one
misunderstanding.
>
>"So, then, what label shall I choose for my concept of a Creation that has
>been equipped by God with all of the capabilities that are necessary to
>make possible the evolutionary development now envisioned by the natural
>sciences? For the purposes of the discussion to be carried out in this
>book, I shall call it the "fully-gifted Creation perspective"--a vision
>that recognizes the entire universe as a Creation that has, by God's
>unbounded generosity and unfathomable creativity, been given all of the
>capabilities for self-organization and transformation necessary to make
>possible something as humanly incomprehensible as unbroken evolutionary
>development." (pp. 172-173)
David Taylor earlier claimed that evolution was too blunt an instrument for
the Creator of the cosmos to have employed. However, when the tool of
evolution is viewed as above by Howard Van Till, it doesn't seem so blunt,
does it?
So, the essence of this issue seems to be one of differing perspectives (is
the glass half-full or half-empty?). Howard's perspective seems to be that
if God created using an evolutionary tool, this reveals a creation that has
been touched by "God's unbounded generosity and unfathomable creativtiy."
On the other hand, David's perspective is that an evolutionary tool doesn't
sifficiently reveal God's creativity.
I think that Howard's view shows less prior conceptual constraint of God's
abilities.
Steve