> I can't speak for Terry, but I suspect that what most bothers him is not
> Johnson's conviction that God has acted in creation in scientifically
> discernable ways, but rather his insistence that God *must* have acted in
> such ways, or else theism is false. That is certainly the main problem I
> have with Johnson -- the position that theism is only compatible with
> "interventionist" models of God's creation, which implies that those who
> picture God as having created in more providential ways (ways that would
> appear "natural" to the scientist) are not real theists. Making the
> truth of theism dependent upon a particular model of God's creative
> activity is unwise both theologically and apologetically. It is as
> presumptuous of us to insist that God *must* have created in an
> interventionist way as it is to insist that he *can't* have created in
> that way.
Do you think that God *could* have acted in an "interventionist" way in
creation, or do you think that God *must* act in what you call a
*providential* way in creation ?
What I am saying now is not specifically related to you Allen, but it seems
to me that some of the contributors to this listserver think that God
*can* not act in creation in an "interventionist" way. He *must* act in a
*providential* way. This is how I understand those who are sceptical about
the Intelligent Design movement. But is there any reason of holding
this view ?
Is it *interventionism* in general or is it the ID *interventionism*
that is the problem ?
Best regards from Inge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Olav Inge Frette Schlumberger Geco-Prakla
Voice : (+47) 6678 8061 (direct) Communication Systems
: (+47) 6678 8000 (switchboard) Schlumberger House
Fax : (+47) 6678 8500 Solbraaveien 23
mailto: frettei@oslo.geco-prakla.slb.com N-1370 Asker, NORWAY
----------------------------------------------------------------------