But does Hugh deny theistic action in astronomy?
The majority of Section 4A (in my long overview) is quoted here:
But astronomer Hugh Ross points out that -- in addition to the highly
improbable "universe properties" that allow life, as described in Section 3
-- a number of "local properties" seem necessary to produce an environment
suitable for life. Ross {@} lists 27 properties of the universe and 35
local properties (for our galaxy, sun, moon, and planet, plus Jupiter) and
describes the negative consequences for life if each property was
different. Based on analysis of these properties, he concludes that "not
even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess
the necessary conditions to sustain life. ... It seems abundantly clear
that the earth, like the broader universe, has experienced divine design.
Evidently personal intervention on the part of the Creator has occurred not
just at the origin of the universe but also at more recent times. {7}"
Whether or not miraTA was necessary in astronomical E, God could have used
naTA to guide nature toward a goal for our earth; this is a possibility,
and it should not be ignored. p182
Does anyone know what Hugh means by "personal intervention"?
The type of "miraculous-appearing theistic action" (miraTA) proposed
by old-earth creationists, or the "normal-appearing theistic action"
(naTA) that could be proposed (but usually isn't, at least that I've
noticed, although I could be missing it) by theistic evolutionists.
Craig
P.S. [The "@" above is a link to a web-page by Ross.]