crf@broccoli.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (07/01/91)
Oh, no, not another Creation/Evolution discussion. *sigh* I would like to
propose a rule that no one be to allowed to do such a posting without
first defining the terms "Creation" and "Evolution." (In fact, this might
not be a bad rule for some other topics either, as some of you may recall
from my previous "definitions of terms" posts.)
There seem to be two prevailing ideas people have:
1. Evolution = a _biological_process_, proposed by Darwin and subsequently
expounded upon by others, whereby the many different kinds of life
on earth were formed by genetic variation and natural selection.
2. Evolution = a _philosophical_statement_ which asserts that the process
described in #1 is completely and solely responsible for the
existence of all life on Earth. I.E., there is no God.
(For whatever my $0.02 is worth, I would say that #1 is more properly
called "evolution," and #2 should instead be called something like
"evolutionary materialism.")
With definitions set out like this, it's easy to see that #2 is completely
incompatible with Christianity. Everything in the "core of the gospel,"
i.e. God's love for us, our sin against Him, redemption and forgiveness
through Jesus Christ, is predicated on the existence of a God who created
the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein.
But #1 does not have the same kind of immediate disagreement with
Christianity that #2 does. A Christian who wanted to propose #1 would
of course have to exclude #2, and instead formulate #1 in such a way to
affirm God's creation at the same time. This could be done in many ways,
but the basic idea would involve God using #1 as a mechanism, while
"sticking His finger" into the works at whatever points He thought
appropriate.
Not that that makes #1 true. (For further discussion of this, refer to
the newsgroup talk.origins.) But Christians can't (and shouldn't try to)
dismiss it immediately the way they can (and should) dismiss #2.
Grace and peace,
Charles Ferenbaugh