Search Results for: Theology of nature

I’ve not really had much to do with the writing of leading theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson, except for noting his occasional public outbursts against Evangelicalism’s failure to embrace his ideas fully. But I probably should have done, because he was Executive Vice President of BioLogos from 2009, and since his departure from them has written a book with its founder, Francis Collins. And, I discover, he has much shown more forthrightness in his writing about the “Free creation” than the curious coyness of BioLogos (to the point of temporarily shutting down comments rather than addressing my questions about it not long ago).

I came across this 1992 symposium when following up a conversation at BioLogos in which I mentioned David L Wilcox. I’ve written about Wilcox before as a like mind in having a high (Reformed) view of God’s providence in nature, linked to at least general support for evolutionary theory (he is, after all, a population geneticist). But apart from his paper here, the whole symposium has interesting things to read.

My apologies for continuing to pursue the prevalent theological view in Evolutionary Creation (aka Theistic Evolution) about a universe given freedom by God to create itself and so on, as I’ve done in recent posts and many others before. My main arguments have been, and remain, its incompatibility with the scriptural witness to creation, and the incoherence of the concept itself. But a further aspect occurs to me which may be worthy of some comment.

Freedom, in both human free-will terms and in the rather nebulous “free nature” view of modern theistic evolution, has some kind of integral relationship with God’s law. God’s moral law, especially with regard to judgement, seems largely a no-go area in the science-faith field. But “God’s law” in terms of “the laws of nature” is often referenced regarding nature’s freedom, and it’s not immediately clear how they relate. I think the mental picture is of scientific laws providing a regulated environment in which nature can prosper, much as the laws of a civilised nation, written in parliamentary statutes or town hall resolutions, permit a society free to be productive and … Continue reading →

I want to return to what I call the “hyperkenotic” view of God, that came into the explanatory model of much of theistic evolution via Howard van Till and, before that, Process Theology. The idea is that God emptied himself of his omnipotence, and even of his omniscience, with a view to acting responsively to his creation. In theistic evolution, this means allowing material substances “freedom” to evolve without the “interference” or “coercion” of an autocratic God.

I’ve been following BioLogos for maybe two years now, and like any other long association one begins to pick up the general “vibe” of theistic evolution. One of the main things I’ve noticed is how unformed the connection between evolution and Christian theology tends to be. TE’s know they’re not Creationists, and they know they reject ID, but beyond that where they do stand often seems vague. When the link is made firmer, it tends to be expressed in heterodox terms of Open or Process theology, as I’ve discussed at length before.

When I reviewed Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell  I was a year late commenting on what others had said about it, and the book came out a year before that. Not wishing to sully my track record, I’m over two centuries late in reviewing William Paley’s Natural Theology. I read the book because it’s almost universally compared (unfavourably) with Origin of Species, and even opponents of Darwinian evolution speak mainly of its weaknesses. I suspected that a book apparently so mistaken, which nevertheless was a bestseller throughout the nineteenth century, had probably been misrepresented. Having read Origin of Species recently, I thought it was an opportune time for comparison.