In my version of the "definitions" we were debating 10 days ago (before
I left for Colorado) there are 3 possibilities: MATTER IN RANDOM MOTION
(with matter and natural laws,... sustained by God), SMOOTHLY-BLENDING
THEISTIC ACTION, and MIRACULOUS-APPEARING THEISTIC ACTION. Yes, I consider
all of these to be "things God does" (in agreement with Allan) -- but if we
don't make it clear that the final two can also occur, our views can easily
be confused with deism or atheism, rather than making a clear statement
about theism.
But if the intended meaning of "natural process" is that only the first
of these (MIRM) is operating, and that neither of the second two (SBTA and
MATA) has ever occurred during evolution -- and I think this was NABT's
intention -- then there will be a SCIENTIFIC problem (with science claiming
that a false theory is true) *if* there was any TA (smooth or miraculous)
during evolution. And there is a THEOLOGICAL problem if "natural process"
is extended to the whole universe by making the fairly easy extrapolation
(of scientism) from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism.
{ Of course, as discussed in the earlier "Sagan/Gaps" debate, a wisely
expressed theistic view of nature should not claim that God *must* have
done some TA during evolution; if evolution did occur naturally, this would
not contradict the resurrection of Jesus. But a claim that "evolution is a
natural process" -- which declares that TA *cannot* have occurred -- is not
compatible with a theistic view. }
Craig R