@Christy
I cannot use the cut and paste for some reason.
God as Creator places us in a dependent position, but we can only speak of God as absolute, and thus there is no reciprocal dependence that causes God to be related to His creation in some way – the absolute negates such concepts. God as Creator is a phrase that points us to this absolute – what we say is ‘less than complete’. My previous reference (Robinette) approaches this by discussing (among other things) power, transcendence and immanence - thus power cannot be discussed as greater strength than something else, or a means to dominate or enforce others into subjection. Transcendence cannot mean a larger distance, while immanence cannot mean God cannot ensure His creation is good, or He is trying His best to make some things good (theodicy). The power to create is far more than the power of a Sovereign (to enforce), although this point is at times mixed up.
St. John of Damascus discusses our limitations when we use terms related to God. Getting back to what I think is the topic; sovereignty is contrasted to an evolving system in which outcomes are unpredictable, and the term ‘random’ (you feel it is scientific, and also philosophical?) provides this false contrast. Sovereignty in this context cannot relate to God, as this makes it appear that He has servants that obey Him and the outcomes are related to this, or the term may mean that God is working daily and the outcomes can enable us to how well (or good) this ‘god-activity’ has become (a bit like process theology). A ‘God activity’ deals with the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world – that is where we can legitimately speak of the Sovereign and His Kingdom.
Obviously the discussion can be lengthy – the points that should define these discussions, to ensure they are theologically relevant, are:
(a) God as creator is absolute, and the Church has formulated dogma that seek to provide a clear understanding of this – I include doctrines such as the Trinity, eternity, Law of God, and all discussions that speak of the Kingdom of God.
(b) All knowledge of the Universe provided by science are derived from the creation and speak to our capability to access the creation as a material thing (this world) and the legitimate response for a Christian is that the Creation point to its Creator - and we go back to point (a).
© Nothing that we as human beings obtain as knowledge can show us how and what God has done as Creator – science is a product of human activity and intelligence – specifically evolution cannot provide insights that clarify or modify Christian dogma – nor does the Christian faith prevent or force anyone to avoid any knowledge obtained from any of the sciences or any other human activity – this freedom is also part of the creation and this takes us again, back to (a).
If we accept ©, discussions on evolution, or Darwin’s paradigm, must be limited to what can be examined scientifically – all scientists (theists or atheists) are free to provide opinion and theory. Atheists do not have any other concerns, so their comments of theology are nonsense – theists otoh are obligated to either become theologically literate, or should avoid making theological statements derived from any scientific investigation. I prefer scientists to understand enough theology to at least fit in with points (a)-©. If they do not, or cannot, it is legitimate to point this out and negate their opinions.