<<Just one quick comment. I do not see any necessary connection between
the
idea that certain events occur "in the fullness of time" (a time
consistent
with God's intentions) and the idea that in order for this to happen, God
must interrupt the flow of the Creation's formational processes with new
form-imposing acts. Could God not have given being to a Creation fully
gifted with the capabilities to bring about the formation of new creatures
"in the fullness of time" (a time consistent with God's intentions)?>>
I've said this often before, but it remains just as true: Howard is playing
Leibniz from the Newton/Leibniz/Clarke debate. This was one of Leibniz main
points, that God can build the clock so well that "intervention" is not
necessary, except (perhaps) for grace, not for nature.
Although I have not seen anything new in the whole discussion of ID, I have
followed it with interest: we cannot assume that, simply because the ground
is old, it is no longer relevant. And Howard (esp) functions here rather
like CS Lewis: like Lewis, he isn't saying anything new and different, but
like Lewis, he's saying it with much eloquence and therefore enlivens the
issue.
Ted Davis