>Stan wrote:
>
><<Terry, can you explain what in your mind qualifies as "tweaking via
>providence", and how this is to be distinguished from "intervention"
>in the strong PC sense of the word? It seems here that you are walking
>a very fine line between the Creator governing his creation in the usual
>TE view (which results in law-like regularities in the behavior of creation)
>and the PC view of a Creator who infused new information or matter at
>strategic points in the unfolding of His creation. If you are suggesting that
>God "tweaks" the behavior of creation in ways that are beyond our
>investigation (shrouded in quantum uncertainty a la Heisenberg, for example),
>then I don't see how that differs in principle from the PC view. >>
>
>Stan, you have truly hit the proverbial nail on the head. It seems to me also
>that Terry is merely expressing a preference for one way of God working, but
>then dismissing the other on less than compelling grounds. For example, Terry
>wrote:
>
><< It's an open question and so I'm completely
>open to scientific theories that don't appeal to divine intervention that
>attempt to explain the origin of life. But if he didn't *intervene*, he
>was still in absolute control of the process through his providential
>governance of the world. It happened exactly when, where, and how He wanted
>it to. It was designed by him for His purpose. >>
>
>But how can you only be "open" to "scientific" theories that DON'T appeal to
>divine intervention, yet at the same time be open to this "absolute control"
>or "tweaking" model? There is no qualitative difference. It is only a
>preference for one non-natural model over another. But why?
>
>Jim
What makes you think that I am only "'open' to 'scientific' theories that
DON'T appeal to divine intervention? Where have I ever said that that?
Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment. Your observation that there is
no qualitative difference is interesting because it extends in the other
direction as well. There is no qualitative difference between the
"absolute control" or "tweaking" model and "natural" models. In fact, I
don't happen to believe that there is such a thing as a "natural" model in
any science if by "natural" we mean "nature working by itself". I really
don't understand why this concept is so difficult.
I accept the thesis of the "design crowd" in principle. I have never
stated otherwise, as far as I know. BUT I reject the view that it is
NECESSARY to a Christian apologetic and I am by no means pursuaded that the
evolutionary arguments have run up against a brick wall. In fact, I'm
rather optimistic about present-day evolutionary arguments.
I still think that the chief difference between Phil Johnson and me is that
he sees present-day evolutionary arguments as inimical to theistic belief
(primarily due to the way its advocates make those arguments) and I don't.
I am totally unpursuaded of his contention that the evidence for
macro-evolution is only compelling within an anti-theistic naturalism.
Responding in part to your other message:
My "tweaking" model does not come from my desire to accomodate modern
science. My "tweaking" model is rooted in my theology, as I freely admit.
Given that "tweaking" model, an it is very easy accomodate nearly any
scientific theory, including evolutionary theories. My acceptance of
evolution is a scientific judgment based on my evaluation of the evidence.
Why I'm pursuaded and you're not, is a mystery to me?
>What if someone CAN'T describe God's
>working in such terms, because it is miraculous?
Then it can't. I'm open to that view. My theology recognizes that
possibility as well.
WCF V,3: God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free
to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.
God can do whatever he pleases. I learn in part about what he did do by
studying the creation. So far I don't have any reason to think that he
didn't use ordinary processes in the development of life on earth. That is
a scientific judgment, not a theological one. I don't rule out
intervention "in principle" the way I see Howard Van Till doing with his
notion of a gapless economy.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*