On Sat, 1 Jul 1995 15:08:08 -0400 (EDT) you wrote:
GS>I wonder whether this conversation, below, has real meaning. I
will
>explain my point after the quotes. I realize I am treading into a murky
>area, and would be pleased to be corrected if appropriate.
>
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>"I keep asking the same question. If God can intervene directly and
>supernaturally in human history (against a general background of normal,
>regular, historical process), why cannot God intervene directly in
>biological history (against a general background of normal, regular,
>biological process)?"
>
>Glenn Morton responded:
GM>"I think God didn't need to get involved in biological life
regularly. I
>think he was smart enough to program the information into the fabric of
>the universe from the start."
>
>Stephen responded:
SJ>Again, it's not a question of God being "smart enough". We are
agreed
>that God is omniscient. It's a question of why God cannot intervene
>if He choses to....how is your position any different from Deism, where God >winds the universe up like a clock and then lets it run itself according to the >rules built into the clockwork mechanism?"
>
GS>There is more to this in a subsequent post, but this is enough for
my
>purpose.
>While I agree that a real difference of opinion is being discussed here,
>let me respectfully suggest that this really has no meaning, for a very
>simple reason: We say God is "omnipresent", which (I believe) possesses
>*temporal* as well as spatial content. Does this not call into question
>any real distinction between God acting "smart enough" in the remote past
>and God intervene "directly in biological history"?
I believe there is an important distinction between the TE and PC
positions,
Gordon. The Bible does say a lot of things about God being directly
involved in this world at strategic points. TE would tend to minimise
that (although Glenn
appears to allow some direct action). Genesis 1 does teach that God
progressively created the living world over time. How He did that is
what
we are trying to find out.
GS>I realize the nasty word "deism" is potentially raised in the
former, but
>a God who could send his Son - when the time was right - some two thousand
>years ago - as the "Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world" -
>has very clearly shown his interest in mankind, beyond any reasonable
>doubt. Moreover, when juxtaposed in this way, we clearly see God acting
>*in a single event* both in the remote past and in history. So I suggest
>to Stephen and Glenn, that you shake hands, and rest up for your next
>battle :-); the present battle is "much ado about nothing". (With an
>"invitation" like that, perhaps you two might prefer to join forces - and
>show me my error of thought. :-))
"Blessed are the peacemakers" (Mt 5:9) <g> Indeed there is some
convergence
of thought here, and that is good. But I suggest we keep trying to
clarify our respective PC and TE positions, because otherwise it will
just crop up again
in another guise.
God bless (thou peacemaker!)
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------