Reflectorites
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:59:31 -0500, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
HVT>The historic _doctrine_ of creation articulates the belief that the entire
>universe was given its "being" (its existence, character, resources,
>capabilities, potentialities,...) by a Creator. This doctrine says nothing
>about the particulars of the formational history of the created world.
Disagree. Howard's minimalist definition of creation is Deism. The Bible
says not only that God created, but also much about how God created.
HVT>So, if Darwin says "I had two distinct objects in view; *firstly*, to shew
>that species had not been SEPARATELY created ..."
>
>And if Darwin says that he has "...done good service in aiding to overthrow
>the dogma of SEPARATE creations..."
Agreed that Darwin here says "separate creation", i.e. that every species
was specially created as is, where is.
But it is clear that from the rest if the Origin (in which Darwin mentions
"creation" or its cognates *98* times and almost all derogatively) that by
this strawman (see tagline) Darwin means *the* Christian doctrine of
creation.
HVT>...then Darwin has said nothing contrary to the _doctrine_ of creation, but
>has made a contribution only to the matter of the particulars of the
>universe's formational history. In his judgment, the dogma of SEPARATE
>creations (pictured as a succession of episodes of form-imposing divine
>intervention) was contradicted by the empirical evidence.
Disagree-see above.
HVT>For Mr. Jones to confuse the dogma of SEPARATE form-imposing interventions
>(a matter of formational history) with the DOCTRINE of creation (a matter of
>the source of the universe's being) is seriously to
>misunderstand/misrepresent the issue.
Howard here shoots himself in the foot. He uses the same pejorative
"form-imposing interventions" terminology for the ordinary view of
creation that most Christians believe in from reading the Bible. Thus
Howard agrees with Darwin that what is the problem for evolutionists
is *any* form of God's intervention!
IMHO it is *Howard* and his ilk who by their pejorative terminology like
"form-imposing interventions" try to make out that the ordinary Biblical
view of creation which has been believed by the vast majority of Jewish and
Christian believers down through the ages is somehow unusual. When in
reality it is *Howard's* (and his ilk's) *non*-interventionist version of creation
that is unusual among Christians.
The reason, IMHO, is that Howard and his ilk have allowed their thinking
on creation to be taken captive by a "hollow and deceptive philosophy":
Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the
basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
namely *naturalism*. By this I do not mean anything insulting. Paul gives
a clear warning that this is something that can happen to Christians
and IMHO this `cap' fits Howard and his ilk. Also I do not claim that
otherwise Howard might be a fine Christian gentleman.
So Howard's views on creation are not drawn from the Bible, and thus are
not pure Christian theism, but instead are heavily influenced by modern day
scientific *naturalistic* thinking.
The test of this is simple. Howard agrees with scientific naturalists and
attacks Bible-believing Christians (both YEC and OEC). Howard does not
strongly document his position from the Bible or from modern Bible-believing
Christian systematic theologies. Indeed, such theologies classify Howard's
(and his ilk's) position as a form of Deistic Evolution:
"Although the term is rarely heard, 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. Deistic evolution has little difficulty with
the scientific data. There is a different story with respect to the
biblical material, however. There is a definite conflict between
deism's view of an absentee God and the biblical picture of a God
who has been involved in not merely one but a whole series of
creative acts." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," [1983],
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1988, Fifth Printing, pp.480-481)
So Howard (and his ilk's) position on creation is therefore not a Biblical
Christian theistic one. Rather it is a hybrid `theistic naturalistic' one. It
enables Christian professors of science like Howard to survive in a
pervasively naturalistic scientific environment today.
But it should not for a moment be confused with *real* Christian theism's
teaching on creation, which is what Howard (and his ilk) spend all their
time and talents *attacking*!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yet even here, where Darwin's arguments are strongest, nagging
questions remain. For example, a reader of the Origin might be justified in
wondering what Creationist view Darwin is referring to. Perhaps this is a
problem more for the present-day reader. Darwin's contemporaries may
have known exactly what he meant, though I doubt it. Often the Creationist
position seems merely a straw man-set up only to be knocked down. 122
The constraints on space in the Origin, which led Darwin to abandon his
original intention of arguing on both sides of the mutability issue, add to
this feeling. The result is that the Creationist position is never clearly
defined in the Origin." (Gale B.G., "Evolution Without Evidence: Charles
Darwin and the Origin of Species," University of New Mexico Press:
Albuquerque NM, 1982, p.139)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 25 2000 - 22:13:59 EST