by jimwalton » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:24 am
Thanks for writing. I’m glad that you enjoyed the conference, for the most part, and found it challenging. I’m happy to discuss it with you.
One of John’s points was that if Genesis 1 is an account of functional creation rather than material creation, it makes no claims about theistic evolution, progressive creationism, six-day creation, long eras, young earth, old earth, or evolution. It’s about what the role and function of the cosmos are, not about how it got here or how long it took. Nor does it make any comment about how old the earth is. The Genesis account, he claimed is addressing a different subject. I’m hoping that message came across clearly, and I’m guess it did, based on your comment.
Secondly, I remember one thing that was said at the conference: there is an unfortunate and unnecessary linkage between evolution and godlessness, perpetuated by the evolutionists. Instead, it’s more accurate to say that evolutionary theory is a spiritually neutral view, dependent on good science for verification or invalidation, independent of any religious or atheistic connection.
Then when Dr. Schaffner spoke, you’ll remember he didn’t speak of the Bible at all, but just the science. What he was saying, quite clearly (as became more obvious in the panel discussion at the end of the day), was that the science is incontrovertible: evolution is undeniable.
This was an idea that rocked most of the room. We are all used to thinking of evolution as the declaration of godlessness. We’ve been taught that if you believe in God, you can’t endorse anything part of evolution except microevolution, and that anyone who subscribes to evolution has to desert their faith in God—that the two are irreconcilable.
The conference ended up raising an intriguing position: It is both possible and reasonable to believe in God and in the lengthy processes of evolution, as long as we understand that God is intimately a part of every step of the process—that evolution can not possibly have happened without his providential hand at work. Remember it was said that the ancients saw no distinction between natural and supernatural processes, and maybe that’s a worthy perspective. It was suggested that the term “theistic evolution” is slightly misguided because it makes it appear that evolution is the predominant force at work, and theism a mere adjective. Instead it was recommended that a better description would be “evolutionary creationism,” putting God as the primary Agent, and evolutionary process the means He used to bring it about. Such is not contrary to the idea of God being the creator, and it only has validity if we perceive God’s power and design flowing through the entire process. Evolution doesn’t undermine our faith unless we define evolution as “a godless process,” which is not necessary to define or understand the term or the process.
Feel free to write back to me with thoughts and responses, questions or clarifications.
Thanks for writing. I’m glad that you enjoyed the conference, for the most part, and found it challenging. I’m happy to discuss it with you.
One of John’s points was that if Genesis 1 is an account of functional creation rather than material creation, it makes no claims about theistic evolution, progressive creationism, six-day creation, long eras, young earth, old earth, or evolution. It’s about what the role and function of the cosmos are, not about how it got here or how long it took. Nor does it make any comment about how old the earth is. The Genesis account, he claimed is addressing a different subject. I’m hoping that message came across clearly, and I’m guess it did, based on your comment.
Secondly, I remember one thing that was said at the conference: there is an unfortunate and unnecessary linkage between evolution and godlessness, perpetuated by the evolutionists. Instead, it’s more accurate to say that evolutionary theory is a spiritually neutral view, dependent on good science for verification or invalidation, independent of any religious or atheistic connection.
Then when Dr. Schaffner spoke, you’ll remember he didn’t speak of the Bible at all, but just the science. What he was saying, quite clearly (as became more obvious in the panel discussion at the end of the day), was that the science is incontrovertible: evolution is undeniable.
This was an idea that rocked most of the room. We are all used to thinking of evolution as the declaration of godlessness. We’ve been taught that if you believe in God, you can’t endorse anything part of evolution except microevolution, and that anyone who subscribes to evolution has to desert their faith in God—that the two are irreconcilable.
The conference ended up raising an intriguing position: It is both possible and reasonable to believe in God and in the lengthy processes of evolution, as long as we understand that God is intimately a part of every step of the process—that evolution can not possibly have happened without his providential hand at work. Remember it was said that the ancients saw no distinction between natural and supernatural processes, and maybe that’s a worthy perspective. It was suggested that the term “theistic evolution” is slightly misguided because it makes it appear that evolution is the predominant force at work, and theism a mere adjective. Instead it was recommended that a better description would be “evolutionary creationism,” putting God as the primary Agent, and evolutionary process the means He used to bring it about. Such is not contrary to the idea of God being the creator, and it only has validity if we perceive God’s power and design flowing through the entire process. Evolution doesn’t undermine our faith unless we define evolution as “a godless process,” which is not necessary to define or understand the term or the process.
Feel free to write back to me with thoughts and responses, questions or clarifications.