Re: [asa] Anti-Creationism Lecture

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 15 2008 - 08:58:36 EST

Would it not be easier to look at miracles as they occur in the Bible,
and see if that can shed any light on the question as to whether TE is
"based on miracles".

It seems to me that miracles in the Bible are chiefly concerned with
God's interaction with people; in the OT with His chosen people. They
are not there to "explain" certain phenomena, but to display how God
cares for his own people.

Hence I think it's a senseless question to ask if miracles are
involved in TE (or indeed any "creation" scenario). It seems to me
that the problem with so-called "Scientific Creationism" is that when
the science doesn't add up (e.g. the RATE "accelerated radioactive
decay" explanation which would cause the earth to vapourise with all
the heat), then the proponents invoke a miracle or Divine Intervention
at that point in order to make it work. But such miracles are NOT
biblical - indeed it seems to me that the Bible teaches (Genesis Ch 1)
that the earth was what did the "bringing forth" and that God endowed
it with the properties to be able to do this.

Hence I think it's wrong (and unbiblical) to assume that miracles are
involved in natural processes. So I don't support a TE notion that
has God somehow fiddling the outcome by stacking the dice, or
whatever. In fact I am sure that would be called "Progressive
Creation" instead of "Theistic Evolution". My concept of TE would be
"God said - Let the earth bring forth" ... and after that creative
action, it (nature) was endowed with all the properties necessary to
bring forth ... by natural processes.

Iain

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> David -
>
> In order to give a really adequate "answer as to whether TE is based on
> miracles or whether it is not based on miracles" we'd need to define a) TE
> and b) miracle. As the term is used in practice, TE is a very broad
> category. "Miracle" really is too. The basic word means something that
> people marvel at, without any statement about its cause or causes. OTOH the
> classical Christian view (which I think too narrow) is that a miracle is a
> phenomenon which is beyond the capacities of creatures & is caused directly
> by God.
>
> But if TE simply means belief that biological evolution has taken place &
> that God has been at work in the process then no, it is not based on
> miracles if "miracle" is defined in any reasonable way. OTOH it does not
> rule out miracles, even miracles that are involved in the development of
> life. E.g., a Roman Catholic who believes that life has generally developed
> through evolution in ways that science can understand, but that God
> specially "inserted" a rational soul" into the some hominids to create the
> first humans in a miraculous way would certainly be considered a theistic
> evolutionist.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Clounch
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: ASA
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Anti-Creationism Lecture
> I'm trying to get an answer as to whether TE is based on miracles or whether
> it is not based on miracles. At first I thought the answer is that no it is
> not based on miracles. But then given what Ted said I changed my mind and
> concluded surely it must be based on miracles. Now I simply dont know. You
> seem to indicate the answer is no.
>
> I said nothing whatsoever about anybody caving on anything.
>
> The problem is, how do we know one thing involved supernatural intervention
> and another thing didnt?
>
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 15 08:58:54 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 15 2008 - 08:58:54 EST