>From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>> It may not be a "classic" variant, but I'm
>> inclined to agree that it is a variant of
>> progressive creationism. The replacement of
>> capability gaps with improbability hurdles seems
>> too small a modification to get out of the PC
>> territory.
>
> No, they are fundamentally different.
> Capability gaps: unforeseen, design imperfections, even goofing, ...
Not at all. If they are there by the design of an omnipotent Creator,
wouldn't they be foreseen & planned?
> Improbability hurdles: foreseen, inherent in the optimal design of the
> system-as-a-whole, necessary for showing God's loving involvement in
> providence, necessary part of the planned natural mechanism of
> development of the creation.
Peter, I think you are here making excessive claims in your use of the terms
"optimal" and "necessary."
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 20:10:15 EST