Re: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 18:19:03 EDT

Keith and Michael:

Keith, you wrote:

---------------------
You seem to define "creation" as excluding evolutionary mechanisms. If you
define words in this way of course there is conflict -- but it is a conflict
generated by the assumptions underlying the definitions. On what theological
basis is evolution excluded as God's chosen mechanism for creating the Earth
biological diversity?

Divinely guided evolutionary processes are completely consistent with
evolutionary science. How could science ever exclude such divine guidance
and superintendence of natural processes?

Keith
----------------------

Actually, no, I do not define creation as excluding evolutionary mechanisms.
Again, the mechanism *per se* is not the issue. The issue is what meaning is
poured into the mechanism. Is the mechanism merely a deterministic tool that
God uses, or does the mechanism itself determine, to some extent, the
outcome, exclusive of divine will?

Simply put, the issue is whether or not creation is what God intended. Is
divine action efficacious so nature represents divine will, or is divine
action limited or otherwise not efficacious so nature is not a divine
design?

Of course, evolution is and always has been the latter. Burnet, Leibniz,
Kant, etc, on up to Darwin argued forcefully that this *must* be the case.
And Darwin presented dozens of such theological arguments which continue to
be persuasive today. The whole point is that God *wouldn't* have made it
this way (pace so many biblical verses). Hence, evolution. We can't then
turn around and say evolution is orthodox.

--Cornelius

> 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

Michael:

Well then you've probably read Thomas Burnet's *The Sacred Theory of the
Earth* which was fairly influential. He used several theological arguments
for why secondary causes were the culprit for those ugly ravines and
coastlines.

--Cornelius
Received on Mon Sep 26 18:23:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 18:23:06 EDT