Reflectorites
There are some corrections I would like to make to this message.
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:16:49 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
SJ>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.
By "Howard's minimalist definition of creation is Deism" I meant it is
equivalent to Deism's view. I did not mean to imply that Howard himself is
a Deist.
>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..."
SJ>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.
SJ>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.
SJ>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!
This is unclear. What I meant was that Howard uses the same term: "form-
imposing interventions" on *any* form of creation other than his `front-
loaded' "fully-gifted" version. So Howard's distinction between "separate"
creations and any other form of interventionist creation like Progressive
Creation, falls flat.
Thus Howard inadvertently confirms my claim that by "separate creations"
Darwin means *any* form of creation where God intervenes in natural
history.
SJ>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.
This last sentence should read "...I do not claim that otherwise Howard
might" not "be a fine Christian gentleman." That is, I do not claim that
because Howard has allowed his thinking to be captured by naturalism on
the subject of creation, that he may not otherwise be a fine,
supernaturalistic Christian on other, non-scientific topics.
SJ>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.
I should make clear that I am not being scornful of Howard (and his ilk).
Indeed, I sympathise with his problem of surviving as a Christian in
pervasively naturalistic modern science. But I believe that Howard's
strategy of survival by minimalising Christian theism so that it is virtually
invisible to scientific naturalism's `radar' is *wrong*.
SJ>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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 10:14:07 EST