On Mon, 03 Jul 1995 13:06:06 +0930 you wrote:
MP>ABSTRACT: 1. Glenn asked for possible explanations for why God
would
>create gradually (through either PC or TE) rather than instantaneously
>creating the final product. I have given what I believe _might_ be
>the reason. Ultimately though, only God has full understanding of why
>he created the way he did.
SJ> 2. Some possible reasons are why God might have created
progressively
over time. Also, some additional support for why God does not compel
belief
by more clearly revealing Himself. Finally, support for a request that
TE
clarify its position re the priority of science and the Bible.
>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.
I would like to explore these possible reasons why God might not
create the final product, but do it in a series of supernatural steps:
1. The first point is that Genesis 1 does reveal God not creating the
earth's living world in one instant. Even on YEC interpretations, it
took God six days to form and fill the earth. This was a big problem
to the Greek church fathers like Augustine who wondered why it took
God so long!
2. Another reason is that everything lives in a biological context, an
ecology. This is the message of Ps 104 where God's wisdom is seen in
everything interrelating in a coherent whole. To create living things
de novo would be incredibly disruptive to the existing ecology.
This is what man does with too sudden changes. Far better to give the
ecology time to adjust.
3. A third point is that God may actually enjoy His work of creation.
He may like to see things developing more slowly. God does not work
according to our time-frames which in the final analysis are dictated
by our short 70 year life-spans.
These are three reasons. Can anyone think of others?
MP>...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>...I have often wondered the answer for my point of view
also...what the possible answers are. Nothing seems very
satisfactory along those lines of questioning...
MP>It seems to me that whether you're a PC or a TE (or perhaps even a
>YEC), you would have to admit that it is understandable how atheists
>can satisfy themselves with a naturalistic explanation of the world
>and our origins.
Agreed. God allows men the possibility of denying Him. If it was
impossible to deny him, then everyone would be a believer, albeit to
some not willingly.
MP>God's work in the world is not as obvious as
>day-to-day physical realities. The answer to the question "Why
>wouldn't God create the final product instantly?" will, I think, be
>the same as the answer to the question: "Why doesn't God speak to
>everyone in the world with a big booming voice?" If God created
>instantly, and science clearly showed this, then the learned would be
>obliged to believe in God.
Yes. Even if God did speak with a "booming voice", to those who wanted
to ignore it, they probably would. In fact it has happened at least
once:
"Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, `I have both glorified
it, and will glorify it again.' The people therefore, that stood by,
and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to
him." (Jn 12:28-29)
The point is that a belief in the God who speaks in nature is not
necessarily the same as a belief in the God who speaks in the Bible.
It will be interesting to see how the next few decades go. There
seems to be a revival in natural theology, eg. Hoyle and Davies
coming from atheism to a sort of theism based on the facts of
intelligent design. The blurb on the cover of Davies "God and the New
Physics" says something like "science shows God better than religion."
None of this is new of course. The ancient Greeks all new that there
was intelligent design and developed a natural theology. However,
that did not give as clear a picture of God as the Bible does, nor
does it address moral and ethical issues, especially salvation.
MP>But perhaps this isn't the kind of belief
>God wants. Perhaps God has created our world subtley, so that those
>who wish to be blind are able to be blind. This is not to say that
>evidence for God isn't there, just that it is subtle. God is calling
>us into belief that is more (but not neccessarily less) than a
>rational assessment - a belief that requires a change of heart. If
>God's creation was _too_ obvious then perhaps this would not reap the
>kind of fruit that God wants. There is enough in creation for those
>who want to see God, to see him, but God is subtle enough in creation
>to allow those who want to be blind to God, to be blind.
This is a good point. The Bible speaks of the hiddenness of God:
"Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel"
(Isa 45:15). God has set up the world so that only the "the pure in
heart...will see God" (Mt 5:8). He varies his visibility according to
the heart of the seer "To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to
the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show
yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd." (Ps
18:25-26). This latter "shrewd" in the original of means to "twine",