>LH>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.
>
>BH>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.
>
>That's what it amounts to. Denis claims that TEs/ECs don't even
>believe that God intervened in the origin of life, although perhaps
>Terry Gray disagrees with him on that? Loren wonders why TEs can't
>get their point across either to the atheists or the creationists. It
>is because to the plain man, a God who does not intervene is not worth
>praying to or indeed believing in in a personal way.
>
>BH>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.
>
>What exactly are these "theological reasons"? If the Bible
>teaches anything it is that God is an interventionist God.
I will respond to this. However, it was Loren who implied there are
theological reasons, so I hope he will respond too.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)