Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB

Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 21:47:23 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB"

    In a message dated 1/21/02 5:00:19 PM Mountain Standard Time, writes:

    > But the anthropic principle can be maintained by those like myself who
    > believe that God created a universe fit for life and then created the first
    > life forms supernaturally.

    This position, which I agree is not as incoherent as some here have claimed,
    divides anthropic arguments into two categories:
    A) Making the universe "fit for life" such as making matter and organic
    molecules stable, having the Earth at the proper distance from the Sun, etc.
    B) Arguments that make the universe "fit for evolution" such as the Earth
    being old enough to give evolution time to happen. This second category does
    not make sense if used by anti-evolutionists.

    But I think there is a different incoherence in the RTB position. With
    regard to the evolution of the universe, the Sun, the Earth, the land and the
    oceans, pretty much everything but life, they accept the standard scientific
    story that these happened through "natural" processes, and see those natural
    processes as the way God works and as in accordance with Christian theology.

    Yet, when it comes to explanations via natural processes of the evolution of
    life, their position is that God *cannot* have done it that way, and my
    impression is that their basic objection in this area is theological
    (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). There would seem to be no grounds in
    Scripture for allowing natural explanations for most of creation and then
    disallowing them for living creatures, since similar language is used for all
    God's creative activity (if anything, the language of Genesis 1 is more
    suggestive of creation mediated through natural processes for the living
    creatures). So what is the justification for these people to say it is
    theologically OK for God to use natural processes as his tools to create
    stars, etc., but that it is theologically unacceptable for God to have worked
    similarly in making living creatures?

    Maybe I've misheard RTB and Ross et al. really have no theological objection
    to evolution of living creatures -- maybe they would say it is theologically
    OK but that they reject it based on scientific evidence. That would at least
    not be incoherent, but that isn't the impression I have gotten. Nor is it
    the way anti-evolution arguments are received by most people in evangelical

    Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
    "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
     attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 21:50:32 EST