On Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:44:23 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen writes
>
SJ>What is the difference between God saying in human language to
>Abram: "Leave your country, your people and your father's household
>and go to the land I will show you." (Gn 12:1), and God "saying" in
>genetic code to Acanthostega: "grow a foot from your fin and your
>descendants will go to a land that I will show them"?
SJ>After all, Genesis 1 depicts God in Gn 1:22 saying to animals...and
>then in Gn 1:28 saying a similar thing to man...The first may have
>been expresed in the language of the genetic code and the second in
>human language? The common factor is the Logos (Jn 1:1)....this may
>be a fruitful area of common understanding of Divine intervention
>between TE and PC?
BH>Personally, I don't have a problem with this view. In fact I
>rather like it. If that makes me a PC, so be it. I have articulated
>something like it myself (and the person I related it to said, "but
>we know God didn't do that"!).
A PC convert? There may no be rejoicing in heaven, but there is
rejoicing here in Warwick, Western Australia! :-)
It is interesting that Johnson, in RITB (I have just got it at last!)
claims that Jn 1:1-3 is "the most important statement in scripture
about creation" (RITB, p107).
BH>How would such a view become a part of a program of scientific
>investigation, though? What "smoking gun" would convince _all_
>observers, whether they be atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Moslems or
>whatever, that a transition could only have been instigated by a
>direct act of God?
There is no "smoking gun" that will "convince all observers...that a
transition could only have been instigated by a direct act of God".
It is inherently impossible to prove unique events, especially
supernatural ones.
BH>There are several possible responses to this difficulty. 1) For a
>Christian, it ought to be a reminder that what we can study with our
>five senses and logical inference is interesting and useful, but not
>particularly important in the grand scheme of things. God is
>sovereign and has let us peek into some of the mechanisms He uses to
>accomplish His oversight, but it's only a peek. However, it's very
>tempting to want to use one's understanding of revelation to dictate
>what science should conclude;
No one is presuming to "dictate what science should conclude". But
Johnson's general point in RITB is that if the Christian God really
did create the universe, then if science ignores this, then it will be
the poorer for it.
>2) For a scientist it ought to be a reminder that science is
>ill-equipped to investigate the spiritual realm. However, some
>scientists make the error of interpreting it as an indication that
>there _is_ no spiritual realm. Neither of these tendencies IMO
>contributes to real learning about how nature works under God's
>oversight.
Agreed, but the real problem is the materialistic naturalism that
underlies science. In such a philosophy there can be no "spiritual
realm".
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------