> Keith Miller says (in the "theism and science" thread)
>
> >I don't think God cares much about apologetics!
>
> Paul seemed to care. (in his discussion/reasonings with Jews and Greeks)
>
What I meant by this comment is that our theology should not be constructed
on the basis of its apologetic usefulness. There are many things about God
in scripture that I am uncomfortable with, and provide ready ammunition for
those who would wish to dismiss the claims of our faith. As George has
emphasised, the cross itself is a stumbling block. Paul says our faith is
foolishness to those who do not believe.
>>It
>>seems to me our science should strive to know what is actually true about
>>creation and creation history, and our theology should strive to know what
>>is true of God - whether that truth is convenient or not.
>
> You've just restated the main argument of ID -- that if a central goal
>of science is to "strive to know what is actually true about creation and
>creation history", then limiting science to MN is limiting its options for
>striving to know the truth.
> For example, as expressed by Paul Nelson,
>> Why? What could one hope to gain by having a *smaller* box of possible
>> causes into which to reach, when confronted with the patterns of nature?
No one in the TE camp that I know of is limiting God's action. My position
is simply that since scripture does not require that God break the chain of
cause and effect to accomplish his will (especially in His work in creative
history), that we cannot a priori dismiss that cause and effect processes
will be found for any given event. Thus as a scientist I must devote
myself to uncovering those processes. If such processes are presently
unknown for a given event, that is all that can be said scientifically.
>>I also assume by this response that you are unwilling to state clearly and
>>categorically that orthodox Christian theism _does not_ necessitate God's
>>scientifically detectable action ("fingerprints")in creation.
>
> I agree with you here, Keith. I think this is theologically sound, and
>should be stated clearly by ID proponents. {unless an ID proponent
>disagrees with it, and then this should be clearly stated.
I find it interesting that Phil has not responded to this post.
Many seem to view TE as deistic and assume that God is seen as not doing
"anything more than watch from a distance" inb Phil's words. This is
simply an misunderstanding of what we are saying. God _is_ "theistically
active" to use Craig phrase in all natural processes. For me a miracle in
which cause and effect are violated would be different in kind (toward a
different purpose) but not in degree of God's involvement. In fact many of
the "miracles" in scripture do not violate any physical laws (eg. the
calming of the storm on Galilee).
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/