I think it is counterproductive to only use the term "action" to apply to
the last 2 of these 3. That implies that God is not "acting" in
everything else, and leads to the Sagan/Johnson picture where things go
on independently of God except in rare (Johnson) or probably nonexistent
(Sagan) cases of "action" or "intervention". As an aside, I don't know
that we have any way of distinguishing #1 and #2 anyway, making this a
less useful distinction.
> <snip> But a claim that "evolution is a
>natural process" -- which declares that TA *cannot* have occurred -- is
>not compatible with a theistic view. }
Wait a minute. Even accepting for a moment the idea of TA as a useful
concept, calling something a "natural process" doesn't equate to saying
that TA *cannot* have occurred. It is at most a statement of belief that
TA *did not* occur -- in other words that they believe that no
supernatural intervention entered into the process. But saying that a
specific process is not a result of supernatural intervention is not a
statement that there is no supernatural whatsoever.
I go back to the question of describing lightning and thunder as "natural
processes". Is this objectionable for theists? I think not, even though
the Bible tells us those are God's doing. What is *fundamentally*
different about the evolution of life that makes it _a priori_ atheistic
to call it "a natural process" when it is OK to use such language about
other processes in God's creation?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | Phone: (303)497-3555 |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | Fax: (303)497-5224 |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Don't blame the government for what I say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------