Howard Van Till wrote:
What does ID mean?
(110661.1365@compuserve.com)
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:57:07 -0400
EGM writes:
"At any rate, given that you recognize the prior action of
a creative mind wholeheartedly (I don't doubt you on this at all),
isn't it possible that one particular (not the only) way that the
creative mind could have expressed His creativity was by assembling
bioform X or biosystem Y for the first time by exercising His
form-imposing
action as a dextrous, craftsman-type agent? Why limit the action of this
omnipotent creator to one way or another?"
My response: I do not intend to limit the omnipotent Creator in any way,
of course. (Besides, I don't think I could do that even if I tried)
[Obviously I mean "philosophically/theologically"]
Neither
do I wish to argue that the Creator could not have acted like a
form-imposing, dexterous, craftsman-type agent if that were consistent
with
his character and will.
At the same time, I might ask proponents of any version of episodic
(special) creationism if they think it impossible for God to have given
being to a Creation gifted with a robust formational economy, that is,
gifted with all of the creaturely capabilities that would be required
for
the remarkable phenomenon of macroevolution to be possible. Would that
suggest a Creator of any less creativity, generosity, or power?
[Speaking/responding for myself, NOT AT ALL. I'm with you when you
speak of a "robust functional economy" if supernatural miracles are
allowed, but I don't accept a "robust formational economy" across the
board for the same reason - no humanly visible supernatural activity
allowed. For example, I'm with G. Murphy when it comes to mediate
creation (which in his mind is evolution) suggested by the "brought
forth" the waters and the ground in Genesis, but the creation of man
seemed to me to be treated way to especially, and frankly, is
described in very "crafty" ways. Of course I believe/accept a "robust
natural economy", I experience it every day, I but I do also believe
in the burning bush, in the parting of the Red sea and the Jordan, in
the knitting of my body in the depths of my mom, in my new creation by
the Spirit, in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, etc., all
which are matters closer to the supernatural than to the natural.
Therefore, philosophically and theologically I accept both (and
perhaps others) posibilities as long as they are in accord with the
character of God revealed in the Scriptures.]
My point continues to be that if form-imposing, craftsman-type action is
the principal (or only) kind of divine action that the vocal
proponents of
ID count as the kind of creative action that "makes a difference" (a
favorite expression of Phil Johnson) in the Creation's formational
history,
then they should say so clearly and candidly so that everyone who sees
the
term ID in their literature will actually know what concept is being
promoted.
[From my readings I don't believe that form-imposing, craftsman-type
action is the principal (or only) kind of divine action that the vocal
proponents of
ID count as the kind of creative action that makes a difference. Even
from Johnson's book, DOT, I did not get this impression at all. What
I did get was the impression that if theistic sciencetists do not
allow God to work outside the _assumption_ of "robust formational
economy" paradigm we could miss some pretty good discoveries and
continue to declare darwinism/gradualism as a fact even though it may
very well be a fantasy ...... Thanks again ]
Ed
==
EGM
"in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com