In a message dated 7/23/2000 6:51:13 PM, dfsiemensjr@juno.com writes:
<< As a strict theist, I am committed to the notion that the universe is
designed intelligently. When I recognize God as omnipotent and
omniscient, I assert that he does not have to either tinker with creation
to get it to come out right or to tip his hand so that we must
acknowledge his activity. >>
Dave,
I deplore your use of such pejorative comments as "tinker with" and "make it
come out right" or "tip his hand". Such usage is more inflammatory than
enlightening. All these comments amount to, as I see it, is your judgment
based on your interpretation of God's omnipotence and omniscience, that "God
wouldn't do it that way".
I agree with your assertion that God does NOT HAVE TO DO what he does in
nature. What have I or other IDers ever said that makes you impute such a
view to me or others? You are setting up a strawman that does not exist in
reality.
Let me suggest that there are numerous other models or analogies of how God
might freely interact with his creation, assuming as I do that God does so..
You are undoubtedly aware of them. God might act as a gardener with creation
as his garden that develops on its own but also is dependent on timely
watering, harvesting, planting, etc., as I have suggested elsewhere. Or
there is the analogy of God as an author or playwright, with himself as one
of the actors. Creation can be seen as an arena in which God acts, sometimes
directly and sometimes indirectly.
The Bible is rich in poetic statements describing God's interaction with
nature, as in Ps. 18, Ps. 65, Job 38. These form the basis of my belief that
God is directly as well as indirectly involved with his creation.
Don't you think God is "tipping his hand so that we must acknowledge his
activity" when Rom. 1:19-20 says, "For what can be known of God is plain to
them (humans), because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of
the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been
clearly perceived in the things that have been made"?
Since you say, "I am committed to the notion that the universe is designed
intelligently," I do not understand why you object if I and other IDers, who
share this general commitment, try to infer intelligent design in particular
situations, such as, complex biochemical systems and complex integrated organ
systems.
<<Were the latter the case, as Bill Williams remarked the last time I saw
him, we "would have God in a test tube." Any attempt to prove the existence
of God is futile. Augustine had it right in his _credo ut intellegam_, which
echoes the thought of Hebrews 11:6. >>
Who is trying to prove the existence of God? I'm not. I assume it, and
from that assumption I try to infer how he did it. My goal is to understand
the biosphere as a whole, using scientific approaches to the limit, including
phyletic and individual developmental and evolutionary approaches when they
reasonably account for the phenomena, and keeping an open mind to the
inference of intelligent design, and when it justified, including it in my
total understanding. What is your objection to that?
Peace,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 07:49:10 EDT