Very interesting, is there a book or something on this topic?
> > 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. Of course.
>
> > 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?
>
> Given my statements above about the theology of the cross as the
> key to seeing God at work in the world, you'll see that for me there is
> strong theological reason to try to push explanation in terms of natural
> processes as far as possible.
And as I said, I find this approach logical and practical; but at the same
time we must wary of new arguments (like Behe's) lest God be knocking our
doors and we choose not to open them.
> God allows himself to be upstaged (or
> "pushed out of the world onto the cross" as Bonhoeffer says) by his own
> creatures.
Very Interesting. I have read little of Banhoeffer, there are a few good web
pages on him.
> At the same time I won't be dogmatic about how far back this can
> go. I suspect that one implication of Goedel's theorem is that laws
> which describe the universe can't be a totally closed system.
I don't know (does anybody?) how far back we can go and I don't exclude other
possibilities such Behe's "Designed" designs.
> The _theological_ problem with the claims of Behe _et al_ & the
> whole ID movement is that they insist that certain natural phenomena
> _compel_ us - if we're intellectually honest - to acknowledge God at
> work, & that independently of faith in Christ.
I see your point, but you can not refute them absolutely. The fact that you
don't like it does not mean is not true or possible (Psalm 19 and Ro 1 are
pretty good support for their approach, we went over this before).
> > 3) we are yet to determine is life can be reduced to physics.
> IMO as a physicist, even if ID turns out to be scientifically
> viable (which I doubt) it will not be a vitalistic ID.
> Shalom,
> George
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't know what will happens.
Salu2, Eduardo.