Creegan’s abstract suggests that the Creator is affirmed both in the created world and in the development of the creation as seen in its present situation and where it will be heading in the future. This she said is arguably seen in the recent insights and discovery in biology which are more compatible with the evangelical faith than with the theories of Darwin and those who champion his beliefs (p.499). The writer’s case in point is that the presence of God, both as the Creator and Sustainer of all that is in the world, in the processes of creation, even in secondary evolutionary ones, is apparent and embedded. She attempted to bridge the gap between verifying the presence of God in the created world then and now, while at the same time affirming the veracity of some of the theories in the evolution narrative as advocated by biologists, especially those which fall under the newer insights on creation itself.
While some theologians easily dismiss evolution as hostile to the Christian faith, Creegan, a systematic theologian, whose forte is in science/theology interface and ecotheology, expounded that there is a link between the two and here she justifies her abstract. Creegan at the outset sets the tone for warranting God’s omnipresence in his creation, and in secondary evolutionary causes, obscure as it may appear. This is crucial since it is important to affirm that God’s presence is discernable in the world even behind the secondary evolutionary processes. Her take on the problem of theodicy, which is a result of Darwin’s theory, claiming that God is imperceptible in the evolutionary perspective, is of good value. She insisted the fact that God is eternally Other, yet his immanence, is undoubtedly in command. Creegan’s thesis provides the believers at present who are weary of the world’s dismissal of the Creator and His role in the process of secondary evolutionary causes, a relief and a hope at the reality of God’s work in nature. It holds up the orthodox belief in the Creator God, who is intimate with his creation, without dismissing the arguments posed by biologists who, as part of their newer understanding, see teleology as now a basic and a key concept in understanding life itself.
Creegan’s dialogue between theology and newer biologies is something fresh for Christians to consider. It does not immediately dismiss the claims of those who are opposed to God’s presence in the creation but deemed it best to constructively argue and challenge the pressing doubts of the skeptics. This she successfully expounded by saying that biology as a science is on a paradigm shift, becoming less and less Darwinian in its approach and perspective. It is quite interesting that the writer’s thought on this so-called “shift” caused her to return to the roots of her belief, citing the mystery of the Trinity, the hidden and revealed God, and the supernatural acts of the Creator in the natural, as the vital facets in one’s understanding of God transforming nature. Whereas some theologians have veered away from being biblical in their ideas, to the extent of accommodating the secular, Creegan stayed true to her belief and she kept her arguments intact with the orthodox faith.
Two improvements, however, to say the least, can be made in her thesis. First, she could have been more specific as to which parts of the evolutionary history are to be affirmed as congruent and thus attest to the Christian faith. The vagueness of the statement may leave some asking for more proof than she already has. Evolution is seen for centuries as an adversary of the faith and this is such a sensitive issue for many. Had Creegan been more perceptive of this thought and somehow became more conscious of generalizations, would her argument be more convincing.
Secondly, she could have been more careful stating that the “understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and the promise of as-yet-unknown mechanisms” (pp. 502) could well resonate with theological concerns, since, there is no certainty in this. The concern of secular proponents of evolutionary processes is not to affirm God’s presence in nature, but in most cases to dismiss it, so it holds no guarantee of being theologically compatible. Though it might brush aside the strict concept of Darwin’s conviction, it gives no assurance that it will echo the orthodox faith. What the writer articulated is every Christian’s hope, yet, to no avail can we say that God’s discernability in nature is to be proved by these evolutionary mechanisms.
The challenge of a few biologists to Darwin’s belief would not entail in a shift of belief and understanding of the majority, unless, science proves them wrong. It could somehow strike as an intelligent challenge, yet, for Creegan to say that potential understanding on evolution would generally be in favor of the Christian tenets about God being hidden and revealed in nature is not too convincing. The current understanding of evolutionary mechanism, suffice to say, even though it might be more theological than Darwinian in approach, will not make the experts of science, the atheists and the skeptics altogether, change their view on Gods presence in creation.
That being said, Creegan’s proposal is imperative to a believer’s understanding of how the world sees God in the process of creation. It is a successful attempt at bringing the orthodox view in dialogue with the present assumptions of the secular world about God’s activity in nature. The biblical view of the immanence and transcendence of God is given priority in understanding his approach to his creation. This is significant since her reformulation of the Christian theology of God’s work in creation is not at odds with our reformed belief, but a contemporary reconstruction of it to accommodate interactions with the challengers of the faith, without compromising any of our belief in God, the Creator.
Creegan’s thesis will help us to rethink our beliefs without lambasting the doubts of cynics but giving them a credible and intelligent explanation of God’s foremost participation in creation both then and now. Yet, it is remarkable that Creegan’s response, undaunted and firm, cautious yet confident, is what the Christendom needs at present. Her dialogue with the world’s skeptics proves that it is possible to reformulate our Christian faith to suit the intellectual needs of the time yet staying grounded to orthodoxy. This dialogue must continue, evidently knowing that we are giving reasons for our faith. Creegan’s approach gives us a reason not to be afraid to dialogue with the skeptics since we know that we are in the truth. Her work gives assurance to those whose faith is irresolute and makes those who are certain unfazed by the challenges that science may bring to orthodoxy.
The supernatural God cannot be inconsistent with his creation. His ways of leading nature to where it should go, including the visible and invisible processes, is congruous to who He is as the Creator and the Sustainer of all. Creegan’s work therefore is a classic model of tying in the secular belief in the process of creation and the sacred conviction of God’s power, his transcendence and immanence in his creation. Yet, no matter how Christians would try to reconstruct their beliefs, lay their cards on the table, and try to convince the skeptics, it is significant to realize that our inability to see God’s work in and around us is a foremost result of the fall of humanity to sin. With this, the separation of God and man is only solved with the regenerating power of the Spirit, leading us to open our hearts to who God, the Creator, really is. This is and will always be the starting point in leading people to believe in God’s awesome work and overarching approach and purpose to his magnificent creation.
Copyright, 2011
You can check a portion of her paper here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-christian-theology-of-evolution-and-participation/
No comments:
Post a Comment