>I think we are not completely communicating.>>
I agree. But we can keep trying!
>>I was specifically
>referring to fossil animals, not to miracles at Cana etc.>>
I, OTOH, was not, at least not directly.
>> While God does
>intervene, it doesn't mean that God intervenes in everything. >>
Of course I agree. All it does is make plain the fact that God DOES
intervene in some instances. Maybe "everything," but I don't think so.
Maybe some things, few or many, I don't know.
I am intrigued by Bill Hamilton's "2x" metaphor. I can easily
see God changing things over time, adding a new organism, changing one,
etc.
God "at play" in a sense. As any good engineer does, not that God is an
engineer, of course, but He seems to have some of the same
characteristics of one.
>>By intervene I mean the contradiction of natural law (which is a
constant expression of God's >sovereignty>>
Whether "natural law is the expression of God's sovereignty or not, I
don't
know. I'd rephrase he above to simply say "non-natural causation." Is
that OK?
>What allows you to make the assumption that God MUST intervene in the
>creation of animals? >>
I don't dictate to God what He must, or must not, do. What I do assert is
that
an assumption that He DOES intervene, from time to time, seems (to me) to
be the best explanation for the world I understand.
> God doesn't intervene in the motion of the
>planets.>>
How do you know this? I will grant that
1. He does not SEEM to do so and
2. There does not seem to be, at least at present, any reason to do so.
>I would just say that 'may have happened' can't be construed as DID
>happen. >>
Of course not.
> You may be right that PC is correct. I just see no compelling reason
>to hold it other than an extrapolation of things like you suggest.
I understand that, and it causes me no problem. We have had different
experiences in this world, and hold different knowledge.
I will offer one more argument I have so far avoided, because I find it
difficult to express. But I'll try.
First, I hold to "free will." I know there are folks who don't, and I've
read their
arguments. They are unpersuasive (to me). So -- start with that one.
Second, if there IS free will, then I, John Burgeson, and you, Glenn
Morton, are
perfectly capable of effecting non-natural causation on a regular basis.
I order you now to scratch your right cheek. Did you? Whether or not you
did, you HAD to think about it and decide, pro or con. Because you did
(or did not), the world will be a little different from now on if I had
not ordered you to do so! Both you, and I, effected a small part of
non-natural causation, Glenn.
And if WE can do this, even in a small way, it is obvious that our Lord
can, also. Now, given that He loves His creation, and us, is it not most
reasonable to assume that He, from time to time, "twiddles" with the
machinery? I think to assert that He does not is ludicrous. To assert
that one THINKS He does not is OK, but in the light of the arguments so
far, I am at a loss to see why anyone would think this.
Sorry for the somewhat convoluted argument, Glenn. I'm sure I could do
better, and that most probably others here could do better still.
Cheers from wet Durango.
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]