The Fear of Creation

I've been thinking about how our liberal theologians (with their Humanist hermeneutic) seem to be highly concerned about the creationist movement. I see people who are becoming afraid that the 'christianity' they've treated as a game, as idle speculation, just might be, real. It seems obvious to me that they don't want Christianity to be real; that this is their greatest nightmare. They've spent their 'careers' treating Christianity as a humanist invention, as a cloak for their left wing humanism, and now they see evidence (in creationist claims) that it might be real.

Since having Christianity be real, (and having people treat it as if it were real) is something they hate, they fight against any and all creationist claims. They deny (without much if any study) that any of these claims are real. They claim that all evidence for creation is false, and that all critiques of Evolution are false. A great fear that creation is true has come upon them. If creation is true after all; it means all their liberal (Humanist) theology is wrong. They know enough to know that they are damned if Biblical creation turns out to be real. At the very least, they will have to repent and be converted... but do they want to? And can they, at this late date do so? It's one thing to mock creation (and Biblical Christianity) if you think it unreal, it's another thing to have this mocked thing become real. Will they dare to mock it if they have to admit it's real?
- This then is their dilemma, and why they hate and fear the creationist movement so much.

I don't want to generalize, but most theologians who have come out as opponents of creation can be roughly categorized as followers of process theology. [1.] At the heart of PT is the idea that if we can't understand something it can't be true. This has emotional force, but intellectually speaking it's transparently false. The Process theologian simply refuses to accept mystery. This is a case of intellectual and spiritual pride.

A. 'Since the fall of Adam, apostate mankind has assumed its own essential deity. Man is assumed to be a participant in deity. When he uses teh laws of logi, and in particular the law of non-contradiction, as he must, then he takes for granted this inherent divinity of man. He assumes that his logic is legislative for the nature of reality. Whatever esists, he assumes, must be exhaustively penetrable by the logical powers of man.' [2.]

- Why an evolved apes should be capable of determining reality is something that the student isn't told. It makes no sense, and so can only be pronounced as a verity, not defended as a claim. If men truly had such an ability it would surely be evidence against Darwinism and evolution.

Man hates the true and living god because he wants to be god himself; as a result we get the absurdities of process theology. We see in these speculations the unspoken belief man is divine. (There might be some kind of god, but if there is both this god and man participate in the same process of evolution.) The god of PT (open theism) is a 'god' who exists on the same level as man. He knows more (at least now) and he has more power (for now) but he/it exists on the same level as man. It's a denial of the creator/creature distinction. It claims to be avant garde, but it's about as sophisticated as Homer and the Iliad.

Notes;
1. The kind of theologians I'm referring to can be identified (in a less than perfect way) with people who agree with the position taken by the Biologos Foundation. (see previous post.) People like Ian Barbour, John Cobb, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Ken Miller, etc. (People involved in process theology.)
- The main defense of process theology that I've seen is the argument from evil. i.e. the idea that since evil exists in the world this means that God is either not all powerful, or not all good.
2. Cornelius Van Til - The christian theory of knowledge/p.145.
3. Process theologians boldly claim that there is no reason to disbelieve consensus theories of Evolution. I don't know how anyone who's familiar with the literature can say such a thing. Creationists websites put out relevant critiques of E. theory on a daily basis. (See Creation.com, Creation Evolution Headlines, Science update from ICR, and many others)