Re: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 17:01:17 EDT

Cornelius

Can you please explain what you wrote to Keith. I ask this as I have read
"geology" works from 1660 onwards until I can read no more and simply do not
grasp what you are getting at. What are the "motivated theories"?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cornelius Hunter" <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
To: <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: It's the Bible or evolution

> Keith:
>
> Of course you are not the only one who finds that evolution provides
> helpful guidance in addressing natural evil. This is pretty common and
> obviously this concern predates Darwin and was one of the theological
> concerns that motivated theories in the historical sciences that break the
> link between God and creation. That is, it seems that creation does not
> reflect divine will so divine action must not be responsible, or not be
> efficacious. Natural history must be the result of naturalistic phenomena
> (and hence, no detectability of God's design).
>
> This is all well and good, but I do not see how one could make the case
> that Christians ought to view this as orthodox thinking. Scripture does
> not give us a picture of creation not representing divine will. Quite the
> opposite. In several places we are explicitly told creation does represent
> divine will. Take the latter chapters of Job, for instance. God takes
> credit for all manner of designs. He explains to Job, for example, that
> the ostrich does not care for her young very well because ...? Because God
> allowed for naturalistic processes to create the ostrich, and they didn't
> do a very good job? No, because God did not endow her with wisdom.
>
> Clearly there is a conflict between evolution and orthodoxy, so I don't
> think that the conflict view is "simply false." A way to avoid this would
> be to remake the theory of evolution such that it is considered to be
> merely God's deterministic creation tool, but of course this is not
> evolution as we know it. The point is not whether common descent or
> evolution, *per se* can be viewed as orthodox. Of course they can when the
> additional evolutionary thinking is not attached. But this is not what is
> meant by these terms. Common descent and evolution are used to refer to
> the idea that there is a break in the link between God and creation, such
> that designs in creation do not represent divine will. How can this be
> orthodox?
>
> --Cornelius
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 26 17:49:21 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 17:49:21 EDT