>I think Howard Van Till would have made a good lawyer (this is not an
>insult!), because he recognizes the value of being able to "define the
>issues."
>
Thanks, Jim, for the "compliment," but the recognition of the importance of
good definitions is _not_ the sole property of lawyers.
Later, in reply to my comments regarding the interventionist concept of
divine action in formational history of the physical world, Jim says:
>The gigantic assumption here is that only by empowering creation with
>certain
>formational capabilities AT THE START can God be, what, efficient? Good?
>
>IOW, Howard sees interventionism as per se inefficient or imprecise or "less
>than perfect."
I don't recall saying any of those things, Jim. How about trying to construct
a reply in which you refrain from placing words in my mouth?
Regarding evidentialist apologetics and gaps in Creation's formational
economy, Jim says:
>Hmm, I don't think THE task is to "demonstrate the presence of gaps."
>Rather,
>it is the empirical recognition that gaps are there, and that natural
>science
>is unable to explain them. Nor is it the DESIRE to demonstrate gaps. It is
>the
>DESIRE to find the best explanation for creation IN LIGHT of the gaps.
What kind of gaps are you talking about? It is essential once again to define
our terms. Granted, there are, and always will be, _epistemological_
gaps--our knowledge will always be incomplete. The question is whether or not
these epistemological gaps--missing pieces of information--warrant the
presumption that there are corresponding _ontological_ gaps--missing
self-organizational or transformational capabilities in the Creation's
formational economy. A commitment to an interventionist concept of divine
creative action and an evidentialist apologetics encourages that presumption.
My own theological inclinations, drawn from historic Christian thought,
discourage that leap from epistemological gaps to ontological gaps.
Howard Van Till