Re: asa-digest V1 #715

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:57:03 -0500

John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> George wrote:
>
> "A some more scholarly treatment is "A
> Theological Argument for Evolution" in _Journal of the ASA_ _38_, 19,
> 1986. "
>
> I will endorse this last paper. It was the first time I had ever seen a
> resaoned argument for George's TE position (I had not realized it was so
> long ago, George).
>
> As convinced as I am that the PC position is better, this is a very good
> article on the other side. George -- perhaps Terry would add it to the
> ASA web site? Have you asked him?

No, but I'd be happy to - though maybe he'll pick up thread
himself?

A note on PC: I think in most versions of this the intervals
between divine creative works (as distinguished from the ongoing work of
providence) are relatively long. But logically, if the intervals were
made sufficiently numerous & short, & the "jumps" relatively small, PC
would be indistinguishable evolution as far as scientific observation
was concerned. The theological question would be whether or not the
distinction between a lot of "creative" works & a continuous
"providential" work really is necessary.

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy