Iain Strachan wrote:
...snip...
>
> Instead of multiplying hidden, non-biblical miracles like this, I
> propose a simpler solution, involving just one BIG miracle. God
> created the universe and the properties of matter in exactly the
> manner required for all this life to happen. Now that is truly a big
> miracle - an amazing design. Furthermore this _is_ one that we read
> about in the Bible, in Gen Ch 1 in fact, where God says "Let the earth
> produce ....". This also means that the short timescale is just plain
> WRONG. It doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, however, just that you
> can't interpret it the way you want to. The early chapters of Genesis
> tell us something much more interesting about our own spiritual state
> than any literal interpretation can.
>
> Iain
--- so which, according to Scripture, is our deeper more inherent
natural state: our fallenness? (i.e. naturally inclined toward
evil) or our goodness? ( ... and it was very good, as stated before
the fall) It seems that the position one takes on this question
determines much of their posture in the debate. If death and
resurrection is to be a theme woven throughout all creation from the
beginning as I think George said, then does that imply that death had to
be part of the "and it was good" category?
It's interesting that aggressive atheists use Occam's razor in exactly
the same way as Vernon did (only in the opposite direction) --
recognizing the weakness of needing to invoke "miracle" for each and
every gap. They use it to throw out God altogether. They agree with
the apparent YEC position that to explain in natural terms is to dismiss
God. TEs seem to have come to have embraced a dual (at least)
understanding of reality -- that in one event natural explanation exists
alongside God's providence and divine working. While I'm not a YEC, I'm
not sure I've completely worked through these implications. I
certainly don't acknowledge Occam's razor as the authority on truth like
one of my friends does -- though I do recognize its general
usefulness. I just wonder if it is safe or accurate to assume that
constant interventions and workings of God is such a bad thing. I
don't think I share the clockmaker model that only admires the Creator
of an initial action. I think it to be a faulty analogy.
Iain, how would the TE concept of God be different than the deist
version of God? From the YEC point of view, I can see why they would
regard those positions as suspiciously alike.
--merv
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 1 07:17:32 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 07:17:32 EDT