Replies

Our approach to the problem is similar. Where we differ is in our starting points.

de Chardin wrote that evolution is the principle to which all other [truth/theory/knowledge; I forget] must bow. That was, in essence, his starting point, his archai. If we bend and twist Scripture, accepted on faith, to comport with something else (evolution in this case), that means we A) allegorize historical books, and B) by implication falsify a portion of Scripture. Once we do that, all Scripture becomes suspect, subject to our smorgasbord desires to pick and choose the "non-threatening" parts we like (God is love, love your neighbors), and reject those parts that fall outside the ken of our understanding (Creation, the Flood, the long day, etc.). As soon as we project corruption on a part, the whole becomes suspect.

Since evolution and creation are two views accepted on faith, which one comports with the facts? Those embracing evolution as cause for our origins have done an excellent job of reconciling the facts to fit their framework. This does not prove evolution however.

I rather suspect the real reason behind the desire to accept and prove evolution is the age old battle between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent: Those who will cry in the last day to the mountains, "Fall on us!" would wish to salve their fears of the inevitability of their own date of accountability by convincing themselves there is no God, no judgement, no consequences for unbridaled gratification of the sinful desire that dwells in every heart. Cloaked in the erodite and lofty vernacular of "science", evolutionary dogma - I use that term deliberately - stands tall, a formidable foe that would ridicule and devour any who oppose it. It might not be too much of a stretch to call evolution as a worldview the noetic "Tower of Babel" of our age.

You remind me very much of a ficitious character created by Winston Churchill, in his 1914 work "The Inside of the Cup". I have the 1916 reprint, in good condition for an 89-year-old book. It describes the long journey of a bright young Espicopalian rector in the American midwest from stauch biblical orthodoxy to theological liberalism. He mentions the names you've brought up that had lived when Churchill wrote the book - implying that his theological instructors viewed them as threats and exhorted students to stay away from their works. Forbidden fruit. Essentially, Hodder (the main character) moves toward the social gospel and away from preaching the truth in love. He performs many a good work, and sees and later combats much misery created by his most wealthy and influential parishiner, Eldon Parr.

To sum up, the Creationist's starting point is the assumption that God's Word is absolutely true and trustworthy. We may not have a perfect grasp on it (due to sin, and therefore limitations on our observation), but we accept it on faith, pray for illumination from the Holy Ghost, and build our base of knowledge within that framework.

The naturalist's starting point is man, and his observation, which you and I have agreed is limited. Starting with man alone will lead one to the existential despair that has so come to characterize our age. "Anything goes". In not assuming God's existence, he pulls the rug under the very criteria for the truths he seeks to establish; in a most unusual paradox, he unwittingly "borrows" from the Christian worldview while seeking to destroy it.

I will freely admit the Creation view is less satisfying than its counterpart. There is nothing to puff us up. It is the view that humbly says, "Thy ways, O Lord, are not our ways; thy thoughts are not our thoughts". But it maintains the underpinning - the absolutes - required as reference point for truth. Pure atheistic naturalism does not, and theistic evolution contains (as stated in a previous post) irreconcileable antithesis within itself.

One theologian, Dr. Bavinck, said it this way:

"Any science, philosophy, or knowledge which supposes that it can stand on its own pretensions, and can leave God out of its assumptions, becomes its own opposite, and disillusions everyone who builds his expectations on it."

Once again, you've given me a great deal to think about and
your postings are worth reading more than once so the
salient points can be better understood. However, I'll respond after just one reading. I havn't read that story
by Churchill but would like to. Let me say that I didn't
mean to imply that I think Chardin is some sort of Oracle
of Delphi. I cited him to suggest that Christian faith can
be maintained along with an acceptance of evolution. His
thoughts were "thrown out" more to elicit discussion than
as an endorsement. I don't think one has to "twist"
Scripture to make it comply with evolution. I was simply
stating that to many believers they are NOT INCOMPATIBLE.
By the way, I also don't see any incompatabilty (to go
back to your Churchill reference) between a "social
gospel" and "truth in love." As you know Christian Socialism was a powerful and effective movement in 19th
century England and all one has to do is to read the
life of someone like Charles Kingsley to realize that
they were not just concerned with social change per se but
a ministry of "truth in love" for their fellow man that
they saw as part of a Gospel imperative. I think they
would be closer to the spirit of Charles Dickens in the
Industrial Revolution than to Karl Marx. Another point
involves what biblical scholars call HERMENEUTICS. This
is interpretation and has been done by the early Church
Fathers up to the present. You can go back to Irenaeus
and see that he sees a difference between "thou shalt not
eat the flesh of a beast with cloven hoof" in Leviticus
and the Sermon on the Mount. I'm simply making the point
that weight and significance and understanding is all
part of interpretation - indeed the Church wrote the
Gospel and it is no more than a statement of faith (interpretation) about who Jesus was - In their interpretation he was not some historical Jew but a Christ
(Messiah) of Faith. To a Christian existentialist INTERPRETATION IS THE KEY FAITH. I think that Dr. Bavinck
is correct. Dostoevsky put it another way when he said,
"without God all things become lawful." I meant to say
more about evolution but my propensity for sermonizing
has taken over. Sorry if this is less coherent than it
should and I've gone into stream of consciousness!
Would like to hear from you. Thanks.