RE: [asa] Miracles and God of the Gaps

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Sat Jan 24 2009 - 11:24:07 EST

Hi Keith, you wrote:
>>This is one of the reasons that I do not like, or use the term
"theistic evolution" for myself. If someone wants a label, I say that
my position is that of "continuous creation."<<
For one who adheres to biological evolution through random genetic
mutations, natural selection, and mutual common ancestry for all living
creatures, doesn't the term "continuous creation" sound just a tick
disingenuous? I suppose as a descriptive term it may do well in
throwing the hounds off your trail and allaying any suspicions that you
don't acknowledge the Creator, but it doesn't do anything towards
describing what we all know or think we know you believe. If I heard
that term in the blind I would think that it describes someone who
believes the Creator manipulates and controls every facet of every life
form. Out of billions of sperm cells that set out on their journey God
personally selects each one who reaches ultimate success. Every
nucleotide on every strand of DNA was hand selected by God for his
purpose. Wow! That "continuous creation" is powerful stuff.
In short, I think a proliferation of terms of description only confuses
the issue. YECs and OECs do enjoy a certain luxury in that they all lie
in the same beds and march in lockstep to the same party line. On the
other hand, TEs waffle a bit. We wallow in shades of gray. Yeah, I
might prefer "evolutionary creationism" or something else, but then you
have to follow that up with a long explanation of what it is you really
believe. Personally, I think we are better off banding together and
joining in one common descriptive term - theistic evolution. But that's
just me.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Keith Miller
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:53 PM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Miracles and God of the Gaps
George Murphy wrote:

I think that the real question at issue here is whether or not the claim
that God acts in the world is falsifiable. & if "falsifiable" means
"shown to be in conflict with observational data" then I think the
answer is no. Consider an astronomical example instead of a biological
one. A naive explanation of solar energy is that the sun is a big
sphere of coal & oxygen & is literally burning. A more satisfactory
view held in the 19th century was that the energy emitted from the sun
comes from its gravitational contraction. Today we think it's due to
nuclear fusion reactions. The theological claim that God makes the sun
shine by cooperating with the physical processes going on in the sun
says nothing about what those processes are - oxidation, gravitational
contraction, or nuclear fusion.
This is one of the reasons that I do not like, or use the term "theistic
evolution" for myself. If someone wants a label, I say that my position
is that of "continuous creation." My emphasis is theological, and
focusses on the creation theology that argues that God is always and
intimately involved in Creation through the natural processes that God
ordained and continuously upholds. Biological evolution (ie. common
descent) is an extremely well-supported theory in modern science. But
should it for some reason be rejected in the future in part or in whole
(the latter of which I consider highly unlikely) it would not alter my
theological position. It is not scientifically "falsifiable."
As I, and many others in this forum, have stated in various ways, this
view (whatever label one places on it) is not making any particular
scientific claims other than accepting the scientific consensus for what
it is (the current consensus). Its essential argument is theological --
and that is where the discussion must be.
Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 24 11:24:45 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 24 2009 - 11:24:46 EST