>In my view there is no such thing as "unaided nature", everything is the
>result of God's sustanance and governace. I dislike the distinction
>between "natural" and "miracle" and prefer the distinction "regular" and
>"irregular". You see, I am a creationist! Given this I see absolutely no
>reason to reject evolutionary theory on its biological claims. My version
>of evolutionary theory is just as creationistic as is a Progressive
>Creationist. I happen to find the evidence for evolution compelling and
>the arguments of its critics not compelling. I realize there are many here
>who judge the matter just the opposite, but that's why we're talking, I
>guess.
A question for Terry and others of similar view:
It seems to me that what you are saying is that, underlying the very
fabric of our universe, at the finest level, God is sustaining and
governing the universe. That is, at the most fundamental level, our
understanding of the universe must include an intelligent, creative
personality (being). This is (of course) at odds with the atheist,
who believes that the fundamentals need only be described in terms
of impersonal, unintelligent laws and fundamental particles.
My question is: is there any way for us to determine which of these
two "fundamentals" models is correct (God sustained vs unintelligent
laws)? That is, does the "God sustained" model have any consequences
for the universe (which we could observe) which would not occur in the
"unintelligent laws" model (or vice versa)? Or are these two models
indistinguishable from an observational point of view?
Mark Phillips.