> lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>
> >Here, I think, is a more accurate portrayal of all TE's: We allow God's
> >intervention at any time in history, but we believe, based on the
> >scientific evidence and for various theological reasons, that a
> >non-interventionist scenario is currently the best working hypothesis
> >for studying and understanding biological history.
>
> To some readers this is going to read as though "we allow God's
> intervention at any time in history, but we really don't believe it
> happens." I don't believe that's what Loren means, although I really
> should let him answer for himself.
Well, I should hope people wouldn't misunderstand me that way. I've only
written a few megabytes in the last two years explaining that statement. :-)
> I personally would prefer to say that we acknowledge that God may intervene
> at any time, and that indeed He may be intervening continually. However,
> based on experience and some theological reasons, we expect God's
> interventions (really "acts of oversight" is more appropriate) to be mostly
> law-like and not observable by normal physical means.
That's good, though
I would append the phrase "in biological history" to that paragraph. (We
expect, based on experience and some theological reasons, that God's
intervention was not uniformly "law-like" in OTHER parts of history.)
I'd also throw in the phrase "working hypothesis" somewhere.
Loren Haarsma