Skimming through his book: "The Fourth Day", I realized very quickly that this fellow is a theistic evolutionist, despite his denial of it at the last few chapter (he reasoned that admitting theistic evolutionism is like saying God is inferior as He has to "choose" a method that is autonomous from His own will). Semantic? I would say this is the same semantic the Molinists have gotten themselves trapped in without realizing it.
It is disappointing, since Dr. Van Till was a professor from an esteemed school, the Calvin College. This shows that it is hard for a theocentric Christian to find allies in the field of science, specifically in the biology and the cosmos fields.
A few days ago, Janet Mefferd talked to guest Greg Koukl of str.org (Stand to Reason) on theistic evolution.
The name Howard Van Till was brought up. Greg said that he was no longer a Christian. I traced this statement.
I emailed both to STR and Howard. While I am still awaiting Van Till's reply, STR has responded promptly and clearly:
Tim,
Thanks for your email. It doesn't sound as if he identifies as a Christian anymore, but that's not entirely clear. What is clear is that he no longer has a Christian conception of God. Read the section of this article titled "The Fourth Day." I couldn't find the original article that this piece quotes, but it does sound as if Van Till has left Christianity. Here's an excerpt:
As I see it, The Sacred is far more intimately present in the world of daily experience than the old system granted. The SUM (Sacred and Universal More) is actively present in all that transpires in the universe and in the human experience. The SUM is not, and CANNOT be, isolated from the physical/material here and now world that we see, touch, smell, hear, taste and interact with every day. Religion for today must 're-enchant' the world with the intimate presence with which the Sacred and Universal More permeates the world of which we are a part.... I'm willing to give up the old system."
Further, VanTill says, "I find myself avoiding the word 'God' because of its tight associations with supernaturalism. I favor other terminology like The Sacred, and play with still other names like The More, or the SUM (Sacred Universal More), or the SUMMA (Sacred Universal More than Matter Alone)."
"If 'God' represents some external (other worldly) agent whose character and relationship to the world is of the sort that is presumed by traditional supernaturalism, then 'God' is culpable for horrendous failures and caprice. ...That's why I have abandoned supernaturalism's portrait of 'God' and am on a search to find a better portrait of what 'God' represents. I seek a 'God' who is intimately resident in all that transpires 'naturally.'
"David Ray Griffin's articulation of naturalistic theism (in the vocabulary of process theology) is very attractive to me at the moment."
It should be noted that Griffin, a process theologian, says, among other things, "I think of the doctrine of creation out of nothing—in the sense of absolute nothingness—as the root of all theological evil." He advocates a "postmodern spirituality" of "redefining the divine," and calls for "pan-en-theism: the idea that the world is in God—God is something like the soul of the universe—and God is present in all things."
And here is a speech he gave: "From Calvinism to Freethought: The Road Less Traveled."
All the best,
Amy
Howard's Bio sheds a little light...he quite Calvin College in 1998 after the controversy of his book "The Fourth Day" 1986. Now attends a liberal church.