George,
Now I am getting curious. What kind of causal agent do you think God is, and
how is that different than those in the natural realm? Could you be thinking
of the Aristotelian types?
Adrian.
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:47 AM
To: Adrian Teo
Cc: 'SteamDoc@aol.com'; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: So far, new genetics leave plenty of room for faith
Adrian Teo wrote: [My response] Allan, I fully agree that a
God-of-the-Gaps theology is how it comes out to the general public, and yet
the appeal is there because many Christians do hold on to this theology.
Steve talks alot about bringing the God hypothesis back onto the table based
on the Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) approach. According to him,
the IDers are simply asking that the God hypothesis be given equal weight as
any other scientific/naturalistic explanations, and allow the evidence to
point us towards the best explanation, even if that involves God/intelligent
designer.
"Asking that the God hypothesis be given equal weight as any other
scientific/naturalistic explanation" comes very close to seeing God as a
causal agent of the same type as things in the natural world. That is a
serious error. God is not a being alongside other beings in the world, and
divine operations are not the same as the operations of creatures. As Barth
said, "One does not speak about God by speaking about man [or, I would add,
any other creature] in a loud voice."
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 26 2001 - 12:28:57 EST