> From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
> To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: What does the creation lack?
> Date: Sat, Oct 27, 2001, 3:04 PM
>
> >From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>
> > As I considered Howard and Peter's views, which
> look different, I
> > wondered just how different they are in their
> outworking.
>
> [skip a bit]
>
> > Peter argues that the possibilities are so
> varied that God has to direct
> > matters so that the world as we know it will
> result. This emphasizes
> > "special occurrences" rather than constant care,
> but seems pretty close
> > to a twin of Howard's view. It strikes me that
> what we have is more a
> > matter of emphasis than of actual difference.
> Both hold that the world is
> > as it is because God so wills it and makes it
> so.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> No, but you have found a key point that needs to
> be emphasized.
>
> My proposal is that the creation, gifted by God
> with all of the requisite resources, capabilities
> and potentialities for the actualization in time
> of all creaturely structures/organisms, and
> enabled by God's blessing (a non-coercive but
> effective action that ensures the fruitfulness of
> creaturely actions), is fully capable of
> accomplishing what evolutionary science envisions
> without need for occasional supplementary
> interventions (such as bridging capability gaps or
> jumping over improbability hurdles). Part of my
> proposal is that the creation lacks nothing that
> it will need to accomplish the broad intentions of
> its Creator. What looks like a creaturely action
> really is a creaturely action.
>
> Peter's proposal (if I correctly understand it)
> differs at one key point: because of improbability
> hurdles, God must act decisively (by making
> specific choices) in a multitude of biochemical
> and genetic events in order to ensure the
> appearance of life in general and Homo sapiens in
> particular. In those instances, what looks like a
> creaturely action is really the outcome of a
> divine action (the choice of a particular
> outcome). Furthermore, since the values of all
> relevant probabilities are presumably also the
> product of divine choice, both the ineffectiveness
> of creaturely action and the need for later
> compensation are there by divine design (as in Bob
> Dehaan's model).
>
> Howard Van Till
A creature is limited by definition (and experience!). It is
inappropriate to call it "ineffective" if it does not perform
near-miracles (e.g. of improbability). Being God's creature, it is
capable of doing exactly as much as intended by the Creator, but not
more. God creates something (universe, life, "living souls", humans,
individuals, ...) in order to develop it further (cf. Armin Held's and
my paper "Genesis Reconsidered", PSCF 51/4 (Dec 1999), 231-243). Any
development will pass through multiple bifurcations (chaos, wave
collaps, case selection...), where God's providence has "hidden options"
of selection - which he may use if he wishes.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 15:35:20 EST