>I highly prefer to use the term 'The
> Creation' as the proper name of that world. I have also suggested that,
> a Christian, the term 'creaturely science' is more appropriate than
> 'natural science.' In both cases, the terms 'Creation' and 'creaturely'
> serve as reminders of the ultimate identity of the universe. It is that
> which has being--all that it is and all that it is capable of
> as a gift from the Creator.
George Murphy responded:
>I agree with the substance of your statement but not the terminology.
>"Creation" is a theological term, not a scientific one..... There would
be no >problem with using it as you suggest if the conversation were
>only among Christians, but in wider discussions - with people of other
faiths, >atheists, &c. - the use of the term "creation" leads to confusion
& >unwarranted conclusions.
In essence, George and I agree (we talked about it personally a couple of
days ago). My suggestion, as indicated, was intended for Christians only.
And perhaps I should add... only in cases where the discussion merits
attention to considerations that go beyond the boundaries of science.
I should also note that I was commenting only on "The Creation," a noun
employed as a proper name in place of "Nature," not on "creation" used as a
verb. As a verb, I use "creation" almost exclusively for its theological
meaning--the giving of being. I also fing it helpful to use the term
"origin" to mean "source of being." Used in these ways, "creation" and
"origin" have meanings quite distinct from the more narrowly scientific
concepts of "formation" or "assemnbly." Discussions regarding creation and
origin would require a theological/metaphysical setting, while discussions
about formation and assembly can be done, I believe, within the limited
domain of the sciences.
Howard J. Van Till