@jongarvey has a good and frustrated post.
Setting aside his frustration for why this has not happened yet, I think his call to theology of nature is important. In particular, the distinction between natural theology (what we can learn about God from nature) and theology of nature (what we think of nature in light of theology) is important. It seems that these two are often collapsed into one, and opposition to bad natural theology can leave us impoverished in our theology of nature.
Perhaps this is on of the tasks before us here at Peaceful Science?
Coincidentally, I’ve recently been considering Evolutionary Creation’s role from the other end, that is, in terms of theology of nature , that is, what our knowledge about God leads us to expect to find in nature. My thinking was based on the the fact that, whilst ID claims to be a scientific enterprise, BioLogos and Evolutionary Creation do not, and so it follows that they must be essentially theological positions.
I agree entirely with a robust effort to consider science and nature in light of theology.
the theology of nature implied by “Evolutionary Creation” tends to be “We don’t need a theology of nature.” Independent of this, on the Peaceful Science thread already linked, Daniel Gordon (@dga471) , a graduate physics student, endorsed this impression (in agreeing with Eddie’s piece), but put it down to the narrowly scientific education of people at BioLogos , making them hesitant in areas like philosophy and theology.
I think it is more just because it is not really the founding principle of BioLogos to do that sort of work. They rely on scholars to work that out, and perhaps that task has not been fully engaged by them.
Joshua Swamidass asks in his review of the Crossway Tome whether there is a theory of theistic evolution that can be theologically orthodox. It remains to be seen how successfully orthodox views on God’s sole Creatorship and sovereignty over nature can be integrated with evolutionary science, particularly under the naturalistic metaphysical assumptions of modern science.
I’m less pessimistic than @jongarvey here. It seems we already have a fairly robust understanding of this through theology of providence. Nothing in evolution seems to threaten that body of understanding. Perhaps the issue is making some of the connections more clear, and making it more widely known
My cynical side tells me this is because if you refuse to formulate a position, it can’t be demonstrated to be incoherent. Or perhaps, that realising you can’t make “Evolutionary” and “Creation”, or “Bios” and “Logos”, or “Theistic” and “Evolution” fit together, except as a slogan, you keep mum.
I don’t want that to be merely a slogan here. Let’s find that better way…