Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)

Malebranche was an Occasionalist. He believed that there was no
continuing world, but God created a world on each occasion of our
thought. This apparently makes God controlled by the sequence of human
thought. It was not a view that light energy was the occasion for
photosynthesis, but that both light and photosynthesis were created on
the nonphysical occasion. Both Malebranche's Occasionalism and Spinoza's
Monism were reactions against Descartes.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:28:24 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> Recently I have come across the writings of the ordained priest
> Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), who consider that God is the only
> true casual agent-the doctrine of occasional causes or
> occasionalism. I believe that this is an interesting idea of how God
> sustains the creation. Perhaps the process of photosynthesis in not
> really the cause but the light energy is the occasion but not the
> cause of the conversion into chemical energy. It is a cute idea.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wed 10/29/2008 3:04 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)
>
>
>
> Hi Moorad-
>
>
>
> Can I answer your question with a question? Here it is:
>
>
>
> Does God make the flowers grow, or is it the process of
> photosynthesis? Which one?
>
>
>
> I think what we are trying to discover is how God does things, and
> when we see them done in naturalistic manners, there is no
> difference between atheism and TE because both are looking at the
> natural (not supernatural) processes. Science (by definition) is in
> the business of discovering natural processes only, so TE would
> agree with atheist evolutionary theory.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)
>
>
>
> What scientific questions creation by TE answers that cannot be
> answered by ordinary, non-theistic evolutionary theory?
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:49 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)
>
>
>
> "And you draw a false distinction by implying that creation by TE is
> not a miracle. I think it is, but just not a sudden miracle, a timed
> release one."
>
>
>
> A "time-released" miracle- that sounds funny,,, and I like it!
> ;-)
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:36 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson; gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)
>
>
>
> >'The science' (rather monolithically stated) is a bit too big for
> its britches sometimes, isn't >it John?
>
>
>
> No I don't think so. I too was an RTB PC like James for years until
> I read Francis Collins and found someone who dealt with the
> scientific evidence honestly. That is why I say psuedogenes are the
> smoking gun for CD. Once you accept that, the only intellectually
> honest conclusion is TE, which is where I came to, albeit kicking
> and screaming.
>
>
>
> I understand and empathize with the RTB PC position and I know
> giving it up is painful, but it just doesn't work.
>
>
>
> And you draw a false distinction by implying that creation by TE is
> not a miracle. I think it is, but just not a sudden miracle, a timed
> release one. TE and OEC are not that far apart on most issues except
> this very one but it is a major one. It means the difference between
> science and faith, and relevance and scorn.
>
>
>
> But I will rephrase my use of "'the scientific and thinking
> community" to "the rational and thinking community". I know there
> are exceptions like YEC including scientists but again I contend
> that the only rational conclusion of the evidence of CD is TE. All
> this hand waving and appeals to "appearance of imperfection"
> arguments are embarassing and just really immature.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Find the apartment of your dreams by clicking here now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3miigyPC3CNm21YJx8bh6lS1R9TPFbKmLXdjq5Mw7TjHyg65/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 29 23:14:55 2008