I see no relevance of Jon’s statement (which was not, by the way, framed by Jon as a criticism of my current postings) to what I was saying. I was not championing front-loading or asking any EC leader to endorse it. If you think I was asking for ECs to endorse front-loading, you misread my post. I wasn’t asking ECs to endorse any particular way of relating God to evolution – and in any case the one example I gave – which I stressed was just an example – was of a position that is close to the opposite of front-loading!
No, I’m asking nothing of the sort. You must be basing your reply on something you are reading into my posts, rather than on what I actually wrote.
I did not say that “BioLogos” should say either of those things. First of all, I have been bending over backwards in these recent posts not to speak of “BioLogos” but to speak of EC/TE leaders, not all of whom are affiliated with BioLogos. And second, I made very clear to George in a parenthetical statement (which you apparently missed or did not read closely) that the example I was giving was just an example and not something that I was pushing for. There are other explanations an EC might give. I put no limit on such explanations. I simply suggested that each individual EC state his or her own notion of how God is involved with evolution. I said that, as a matter of public relations, that would do more good for EC with the conservative evangelicals than the usual policy, which is (a) to be as vague and evasive as possible regarding how God is involved while (b) indirectly conveying the impression of a God who sets up an autonomous process and then lets nature run on its own.
I’m simply being practical. Conservative evangelicals do not trust EC, and do not trust EC leaders. They are not convinced that EC leaders hold to an adequately Christian idea of God. All that is necessary to dispel this suspicion is for EC leaders to be more transparent. If they choose not to be transparent, they will have to live with the consequences – the conservative evangelicals will continue to distrust them, and will not come over. I’m not making a theological statement here at all, but – as I explained to George twice – a sociological statement about how conservative evangelicals think (something I know well, having dealt with them for 50 years now).
You cannot possibly have read my posts here, or my posts on Hump of the Camel (which agree with Jon’s statement above), if you think that my view is that God is “otherwise aloof and uninvolved.” Nor will you find many conservative evangelicals who hold to such a view. So I have no idea who your target is with this remark.
I never asked George, and have never asked anyone here or anywhere else, for “proof.” Not scientific proof, or philosophical proof, or any other kind of proof. I have asked ECs to articulate their own individual and personal conceptions, their own tentative (and revisable) ideas about God’s involvement in evolution. I have asked them to say how they see God as working in the evolutionary process. This is not an unreasonable question to ask of the leaders of a movement which claims to be making a bold and daring effort to harmonize Bios and Logos – biology and theology. Especially when some of those leaders have been writing books about the subject, and making countless public appearances about the subject, for 20 years or more. Does anyone believe these leaders have not even a tentative personal notion about how God is involved in evolution? No one in the conservative evangelical camp will swallow that.
Brad, you are attacking a view of God as “aloof and uninvolved.” So am I. So is Jon. Yet you persist in putting me (and other ID proponents) into the box of those who see God as “aloof and uninvolved in nature” except for special miraculous events. The point is that the conservative evangelicals think that it is ECs who hold the view that God is “aloof and uninvolved in nature” except for miraculous events. They see ECs as allowing that God did indeed “intervene” in the case of Christ and his miracles, but has held himself aloof from natural processes in all other cases, including the case of creation. I know this is true because I talk to these people daily, and this is what they think EC affirms.
And so far, what ECs – at least on BioLogos – have done to dispel this suspicion is to repeat, over and over again “We’re not Deists; we do think that God is (somehow) involved.” That’s simply inadequate, if you want to persuade the conservative evangelicals. If saying you are not Deists 1,000 times has not worked, what makes you think that saying “We’re not Deists” 1,001 times will work? Can you not see that that EC must say more about how they see God as involved in evolution, if the hope to persuade the conservative evangelicals?
I have said many times that I am not expecting BioLogos as an institution to take a “party line” on how God is involved. I have said many times that what needs to be heard is individual EC leaders, speaking only for themselves, not for BioLogos or for EC in general, giving their own personal (and tentative, revisable, etc.) views on how God is related to the evolutionary process. I have said many times that if more EC leaders would do this, there would be more openness to evolution from conservative evangelicals. And I have been saying this for years, in many venues. And the result? No EC leader has taken my advice (except those EC leaders who were already doing so on their own initiative, e.g., Robert Russell), and the conservative evangelicals are still largely resistant. What if, 8 to 10 years ago when I started giving this advice, EC leaders had one by one been more forthcoming about how they see God as involved in evolution? We can’t know, of course, because with very few exceptions they have refused to do so. But I firmly believe that at least some of the answers the EC leaders would have given would have found partial favor from conservative evangelicals. EC leaders have been shooting their own cause in the foot by their silence and evasion.
I’m trying to do EC a favor by showing it how to win more converts, more quickly. But you and others here often seem to resent the advice. Fine, I’ll stop giving it. But it remains good advice, even if EC leaders don’t heed it. They can keep spinning their tires on the ice, if they wish. But spinning your tires on the ice will never get you out of your driveway.