On Sat, 6 Jan 1996 13:14:41 -0600 you wrote:
[...]
SJ>When I say that "life arose 100% naturalistically from chemicals",
I >mean *fully* naturalistically, ie. spontaneously, with no need for
>direct intervention by an Intelligent Designer.
SC>There is a conceptual problem here. Life can arise 100%
>naturalistically from chemicals, much like we understand the
>naturalistic basis for the growth of the tree.
Disagree. I do not believe that "Life can arise 100% naturalistically
from chemicals" in the sense of "*fully* naturalistically, ie.
spontaneously, with no need for direct intervention by an Intelligent
Designer."
SC>God did not plant it nor did he direct the enzymological machinery
>that allows the plant to pull carbon from the air to form its trunk
>and leaves. My point is htat tree biology can be taught in 100%
>naturalistic terms without invoking direct intervention by a designer
>and we do not have problem with it--it doesn't diminish our
>recognition of God as creator. Christians seem to be more concerned
>about whether or not origins are taught in 100% naturalistic terms.
Again, this is talking about the ongoing *operation* of the laws of
tree growth, which is part of Providence. It says nothing about the
*origin* of trees, which is part of Creation.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------