@Eddie
Well Eddie, I’ve never accused anyone here of being a deist and have never used the word as a weapon (nor have I seen that been done by anyone associated with Biologos, though I may be wrong), but you in the opening post in this thread do use the term. But before I answer some specific claims let me state that I disagree with your definition of deism. Below is the definition on the Deism.org website"
Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.
“Deism” is inextricably linked to rejecting of the biblical God and deists would not consider myself or Denis Lamoureux anythings close to deists. Therefore, labeling any believer as a deist or their views as deistic is, in my opinion, little less than an ad hominem attack (though I know that is not your intention). At most one could state that some EC’s views on God’s ongoing role in nature are the same as those of deists. If people are calling Deism what Dr. Lamoureux and I believe due to our views on nature then they are simply wrong.
Off topic, though you are one of more, “gentler” posters here Eddie I do notice that you throw in the odd word here and there that may not live up to your academic credentials. Here in your response to me are some words and phrases that you used: God, “retired” after the BB, God is, “aloof”, and God looks, “wimpy” and works though, “trial and error” (something you would have to agree with, even if God did create the first cell, or, as you posted to someone else, “gently guides genetic mutations”). Yes, with some you are quoting conservative Evangelicals but I think that may be close to hiding behind them and stating what you really think of naturalistic evolution. Just my 2 cents, you may take it as you will
Back on topic, can you explain how God being powerful enough to create a nature that has the capacity to evolve man to be, “wimpy”? As I stated before, Dawkins certainly doesn’t hold that view. In fact, I would say the opposite is true, that the, “wimpy” god is the god who created this universe that evolves but couldn’t do it all the way so he had to, “intervene” to make it happen. Also, it is simply wrong to hold that our views entail God, “retiring” after the BB or is aloof. Being that He has the intelligence to create a self-sustained creation that would evolve his image-bearers, God intervened when necessary for their eternal destinies, including having his son tortured and murdered for them. How is that, “aloof”? You may mean that we claim that He is aloof in nature, but I think that is a distinction that is not usually explained and, more importantly, it isn’t true. “Aloof” has an emotive element to it and it just doesn’t make sense to apply it to the unfolding of nature, especially when it is conceded (or should be conceded) that God’s laws do the great bulk of the work no matter one’s particular views (outside of YECism). Further, in my opinion, God is no more aloof in letting his intelligent creation evolve than he is in letting society evolve. So, according to your view, if God does a couple of miraculous acts over billions of years, or, “guides” mutations he is not aloof in nature, yet allows millions of innocents to be slaughtered in society without intervening and is not considered, “aloof”. “Aloofness” simply doesn’t apply to the question, other than using the term as a mild ad-hominem attack.
I haven’t seen ECs making the accusations you say they make, though I’m sure you read more than I do. For one not all ECs have the view of nature that I do. [quote=“Eddie, post:36, topic:18370”]
When they speak of natural laws normally being followed, they are accused of being Deistic
[/quote]
I think what these ECs are actually saying is that IDs/YECs are falsely claiming that their view on nature makes their overall views, “deistic”, so I don’t think that is a valid claim against some ECs. But regardless of whom is claiming what, the thrust of my point here is one, that any believer who holds to a self-developing view of nature cannot be accused of being a deist and cannot have the views claimed to be deistic, according to the true definition of deism. And two, these claims are mild ad hominem attacks, which you seem to agree with.
In addition I’m not concerned that some (you seem to broad-brush them) conservative Evangelicals are uncomfortable with my view of nature - they’re also uncomfortable with evolution, whether biological or cosmological. They don’t accept consensus science and I don’t expect them to accept that God didn’t have to, “tinker” with evolution, “should” it be true.
Eddie, I’d like to know how you see God working in biological and cosmological evolution. You’ve written before that you accept, “some forms” of evolution, but my guess is, and I could be wrong, that you’re waiting for something to disprove it or put it into question and believe Adam and Eve to be, “special” creations in the midst of, “some” evolution. My apologetics instructor believes exactly that, (but to be honest, it’s hard to nail down all of his specific views). By the way, I believe man to be a special creation as well, just that we evolved with no tinkering. In my view man is no less, “special” then if he were, “instantaneously” created being that, as a Christian, I hold that God intentioned man through evolution. So, and I may be wrong, you and I are coming from different places. I studied biological evolution, as a believer who didn’t believe in evolution, at a graduate level at a Ivy League school and was convinced, 21 years ago, that it was true and over the years everything that I’ve studied bears out that God did in fact use common descent to, “created” man. However, if one isn’t convinced of that or is still trying to figure it out, then of course they will be uncomfortable with the non-interventionist variety.
Another point about, “front-loaded” evolution is that you and Jon Garvey consistently claim that that idea is inspired by Enlightenment-era writers. However, for myself, I never studied them to any extent and their views have nothing to do with my coming to my view of nature. It was more taking science out of Genesis and rejecting concordism that allowed me to view nature as it really is (at least how I see it).
Question: If God is intelligent enough to create a universe that evolves man on it’s own, wouldn’t’ He have to? If He can, then why would He not? Regardless of your exact views on nature Eddie, you must accept that the bulk of changes in the cosmos and the biosphere have happened through physical laws acting gradually on matter over billions of years. Being so, I find it a bit odd how strongly some people react to my view of nature when, unless they are YECs and disregard consensus science, they themselves have to accept the bulk of what I believe. “But God isn’t lazy and therefore he must be working in evolution!” Yes, through His laws that he, “ordained”! (as Lamoureux puts it and though I don’t vibe with that term I agree with the thought). You and Jon Garvey may claim that my views on nature are bad theology and science but I wholeheartedly disagree, and in the end we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
One last point. If God did and/or is working beyond His laws, wouldn’t he make it obvious? If God isn’t deceitful, and of course the God of the bible cannot be, then why would he not make his, “tinkering” available for his children to discover? You may say that we simply haven’t found it yet, but which way is the whole thing going? Gaps are almost non-existant now. So I would say that I’m on the side of good science, seeing that science assumes natural explanations and is probably the most successful human endeavor in history.
