“There is a strong strain within some Orthodox circles that is deeply skeptical of evolutionary theories. Any account of the world that dismisses the existence of God, or seeks to disregard God as Creator, feels like an attack on the most basic tenets of the faith. Thus, it is not unusual to see sympathy for anti-evolutionist efforts. There are deep theological flaws in all of this – both in the anti-evolutionist Christian positions and in the ill-informed attempts by scientists to undermine the Christian Scriptures. …
“What does it mean to say that God created? How did He create? How did God cause the universe? It is at these questions that theological reflection enters into silence. For the nature and work of God’s causation cannot be known. They are not objects or works within the universe that can be observed and studied. We can see the effects of causation, but not causation itself. In the language of Orthodox theology we may say that God causelessly causes. …
“There are many who want a God who will be argued, a God who will take His place on the playing field of human debate. God as a cause among the causes becomes useful for the human project (whatever we imagine it to be). But ultimately such a God is no God at all, just a god surrounded by the many gods, not the One, but one of many.
“For the literalists, God is the cause of the Bible and the Bible is the great effect by which all causes may be explained. But even here they err, making of the Bible what the Church never received. The Word became flesh (not paper). And the Word is to Scripture what He is to the universe. Even in the Scriptures He remains hidden, the Causeless Cause. Documents, stories, poems, legends and tales, histories, doctrinally-shaped accounts, letters and apocalypse, all revealing their very human hands, and yet His word.”
Eclectic Orthodoxy 
Hart’s The Experience of God strongly points out why the evolution-creation debate as it is typically engaged in by believers and unbelievers alike misses the fundamental metaphysical issues. Freeman’s warning is not misplaced, yet I think it is a mistake to simply equate opposition to Darwinism with fideist forms of biblical literalism. I’ve read enough on the issue to be skeptical about the truth of Darwinism. As science, many of it’s claims do not seem evident to me. There is certainly room to disagree with evolutionary theory without engaging in a kind of fundamentalist obscurantism. To be frank, I’m not sure the methods of science will ever adequately be able to discern the mechanism of creation, largely because nature transcends the category of a machine. Even if one posits a horizontal line of causation, this can never really address the “vertical” impact of something like a Platonic form.
LikeLike
In tribute to the next article, I leave you this:
“There is no theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.”
LikeLike
Thought I’d share this interview with Alvin Plantinga: http://tinyurl.com/keeyyo2
I was quite surprised by the following statement: “Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures….”
The “first being of the universe”??
Anyone who talks about God in terms like that proves that he doesn’t have a clue about God, at all. Haven’t philosophers ever heard of Maximos the Confessor, to name just one?
Unfortunately, though, that’s the level of discourse you get, no matter where you turn. Even from the “respected” Alvin Plantinga, who really ought to be ashamed of himself! Very frustrating.
LikeLike
Thanks, John, for the link to the Plantinga interview. I caught it a couple of days ago, but I read it through quickly and missed the “first being of the universe.” I guess this is a way of talking that is popular among perfect being analytic philosophers. I guess.
As we have discussed in other threads, it seems that when someone begins with the view that God is a person, similar to the rest of us, then he has a hard time fully appropriating the divine transcendence. Negative theology does not appear to have a place in the analytic reflection upon deity.
LikeLike