I think I'm beginning to put the idea/concept/theory with a name.
Mediated creation with Murphy. Hope this is right.
First of all I need to clarify three things - an that be all!
1) I may take a position and ask questions for the sake of arguing.
2) One thing is to learn and discover how the universe and all in it
work (scientific pursuit) and another is the subject of origins. How
far back or how close to the divine creative action can we go based on
purely naturalistic models I don't know, but most christians expect a
"break" where the natural is caused by the supernatural. Since we don't
know how far back we can go I find logical to use naturalistic methods
as far as they take me base on the data. BUT, should I discard ideas
likes those of Behe, ideas that could possible develop into viable
theories of evolutive-creation?
3) we are yet to determine is life can be reduced to physics.
Salutis
Eduardo
George Murphy wrote:
>
> Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>
> > On another point I would like to say that theistic evolutionists (TE)
> > are not unanimous when it comes to how God "acts" in evolution. That is
> > to say that most TE use the same data (to create theories) that
> > atheistic evolutionists (AE) use (to create their purely naturalistic
> > theories from beginning to end.) The fact that you have a picture of how
> > it took place it does not mean you are rigth. IOW, how would you (TE)
> > explain to a AT the work of God in evolution, your (TE's) theories. I
> > can easily conclude that you (TE) don't really have ONE theory, you (I
> > mean TE) are just riding along with AE in the same wagon. Why should I
> > take the TE position instead of the AE position.
>
> Atheistic physicists explain the motion of the planets in terms
> of spaec-time curvature obeying Einstein's equations. As a physicist
> who is a Christian, I do too. I think that God works through the
> instrumentality of space-time curvature, & voluntarily limits his
> actions (within this set of phenomena) to those that can be described by
> Einstein's equations. Is this wrong? Should I add some specifically
> theistic" terms to those equations?
> Many Christians seem content to understand God's actions in most
> natural phenomena in ways that are consistent with laws accepted by the
> scientific community, theistic, atheistic, and agnostic alike. But they
> want to draw the line at understanding the development of life in this
> way. Why should this be? It is particularly puzzling because Genesis 1
> quite pointedly speaks of the origin of _living things_ as mediated
> creation.
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@imperium.net