On Thu, 29 Jun 1995 07:09:56 -0400 you wrote:
>Mark Phillips wrote:
MP>Are you asking, "Why wouldn't God instantly create the final
product rather
>than doing it in a series of supernatural steps?" I can think of some
>reasons why he _might_ do it this way, though ultimately only God knows.
>But this aside, it seems like a strange question coming from you, for
>the same question could be levelled at theist evolution. I don't see
>why it is any more problematic for PC than for TE.<
GM>Yeah, it is a strange question coming from me. I have often
wondered the answer for my point of view also. Just wondered what
the possible answers are. Nothing seems very satisfactory along
those lines of questioning I guess.
GM>The only difference between my position and the PC is that I have
one or two miracles early on. God's work is minimized because of His
planning and forethought. In PC, God is quite busy.
So what is wrong with God being "busy"? Jesus said, "My Father is
always at his work to this very day..." (Jn 5:17). But in any event
PC believes that God has finished the work of creation (Gn 2:2). He
is now in care and maintenance mode, "sustaining all things by his
powerful word" (Heb 1:3) and in fact holding all things together (Col
1:17).
And why does God intervening show lack of "planning and forethought"?
Why cannot God have planned to intervene?
If the only difference between your TE and my PC is "one or two
miracles early on", then we should reach agreement fairly soon! <g>
It should be clear that PC doesn't propose that everything God did in
creation was a "miracle", in the sense of a de novo creation. There
is natural process in Genesis 1: "Let the land produce..." (Gn
1:11,24). The "miracle" could be a complex series of acts, events and
processes, and could include timing and control of the environment, as
for example in the Exodus. The essential element would be God's
direct supernatural action in Creation by contrast to His normal
natural actions in Providence.
Also these "miracles" in PC were not for the production of every
individual species. Rather they were for fundamental design
introductions or major modifications, eg. development of the mammalian
ear sub-system. This
may well have involved a process e.g. from a fish lateral line (inner
ear)
and gill arch (ear-bones), which may be able to be described in
naturalistic
terms.
These sub-systems are combined to produce basic "kinds" major systems
which are distinct both in the living world and the fossil record. The
basic
"kinds" and the sub-systems are the result of archetypal plans in the
mind of the Creator (cf. Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1).
All the above are by way of proposal only, for model building. I am
not sure
if PC claims it all. I am making it up as I go along! If there are any
PC
experts out there, please help! <g>
God bless.
Stephen