On Wed, 05 Jul 1995 16:40:54 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
ABSTRACT: PC does not deny that ordinary natural processes are any
less God's work. Analogies from stellar development are not an issue
with PC because the Bible has very little to say about the universe.
Fully naturalistic reconstructions of strategic points of biological
history could be just as misleading as non-supernatural
reconstructions of Israel's history (eg. Exodus, Jesus, etc). The
Bible is God's unique and special revelation, although a "treasure in
earthen vessels" (2Cor 4:7), and its theistic world-view must have a
priority. PC is a potentially better model than TE for integrating
scientific facts into an overall Biblical theistic world-view.
>Stephen Jones wrote (in response to Glenn Morton):
>GM>Why is it that too often the assumption is that if you believe in
>evolution you can't believe in miracles?
SJ>I never said that. But on the other hand, you do seem to go out of
>your way to minimise God's direct involvement in the natural world?
LH>1. To quote D. Wilcox (again), "Anyone who is a fully biblical
>theist must consider ordinary processes controlled by natural law to
>be as completely and deliberately the wonderful acts of God as any
>miracle, equally contingent upon his free and unhindered will."
>2. There ARE times when it is very appropriate to "minimize (the
>hypothesis of) God's supernatural involvement in the natural world."
>See below.
Of course I agree with all the above. Nothing I say about God's
special supernatural work in creation should betaken as minimising his
normal natural work in creation or providence. I believe in both,
just as I believe in God's love and wrath. My point was that TE (at
least espoused by Glenn) does seem to go out of its way to minimise
God's direct involvement in the natural world. For example, Glenn has
compared God's work in creation to be analogous to a man who sets up a
wave-making machine in his office and then leaves it running. While
this may be an analogy of providence (even that is debateable) it is
not IMHO an adequate amalogy for *creation* as revealed in the Bible.
>Stephen wrote:
>SJ>Again my question is...if God followed this pattern of direct
>intervention in human history, against a background of normal
>historical process, why could He not have intervened in biological
>history, against a background of normal biological process?
>GM>He could have. I just don't think the evidence supports such a view.
>
SJ>What "evidence" is that exactly? If this "evidence" is just
>naturalistic reconstructions of history, could not the same
>"evidence" also apply to: 1. the origin of life; 2. the origin of
>man; 3. the Exodus; 4. the resurrection of Jesus? If not, why not?
LH>Do you object to a "naturalistic reconstruction" of the following:
>A. The assumption that there is as-yet-unobserved mass in the galaxy to
>account for the angular velocity of objects on its rim?
>B. The assumption that there is some as-yet-unknown natural law or natural
>process to account for the "missing" solar neutrinos?
The Bible has very little to say about the creation of the rest of the
universe, apart from saying that God created it in the beginning (Gn
1:1). From Gn 1:2 onwards it deals primarily with the earth. The
issue of any conflict with PC and TE therefore does not arise is
stellar creation and development. Indeed Hugh Ross, who has done much
to support an intelligent designer argument from the scientific facts
revealed by astronomy, is a prominent Progressive Creationist.
LH>C. The assumption that every-day biological development from
>zygote to multi-celled organism is controlled by as-yet-poorly-known
>biological mechanisms?
Yes, I do object to a "naturalistic reconstruction" of the above
biological history because for the same reason I object to a fully
"naturalistic reconstruction" of aspects of human history, where
God's special revelation seems to be indicating that He intervened
specially at strategic points.
LH>You see, there ARE times when it is appropriate for Christians to
>propose a "naturalistic reconstruction" of events, even when some of
>the natural mechanisms are unknown. The angular velocity IS evidence
>of "dark matter." The "missing" solar neutrinos ARE evidence for an
>as-yet-unobserved physical process such as "neutrino oscillations."
>The observed continuity of zygotic development IS evidence for a
>"purely naturalistic" developmental program.
I think you are jumping from one thing to another, Loren. It may be
that God did create the universe differently than from what naturalism
believes, but there is no Biblical data one way or the other.
LH>By what criteria should Christians decide when a
>"naturalistic reconstruction" is (theologically) warranted, and when it is
>not? We both agree that [3] the Exodus and the [4] resurrection of Jesus
>require God's supernatural activity. The recorded testimony of witnesses
>makes this clear; and the Bible clearly teaches that these events are in
>large part meaningful precisely BECAUSE they are supernatural events.
>Instances of God's special revelation -- by necessity a supernatural event
>-- must surely have played an important role at some points in [2] the
>origin of humans.
>
>We also both agree, I presume, that [A], [B], and [C] above are examples
>of APPROPRIATE "naturalistic reconstructions."
>
>I have already written, in other posts, why I think a naturalistic
>reconstruction is theologically warranted for the origins of life and the
>developmental history of plants and animals, so I won't repeat myself
>here.
OK. I presume the difference turns on our interpretation of what is
"theologically warranted"? I believe the Bible is God's unique and
special revelation, albeit a "treasure in earthen vessels" (2Cor 4:7).
Therefore I take Biblical theism as my primary metaphysical world-view
(or at least I try to) and I endeavour to fit all the known facts into
that primary Biblical theistic framework.
It is at least possible that the Bible is indicatating that God
intervened
in creation. The Bible does reveal God as One who directly intervenes
at strategic points in human history eg. Exodus, as well as other
nations
(Amos 9:7). Therefore Progressive Creation, which allows room for
God's
direct supernatural intervention at strategic points in biological
history, is
a potentially better and more consistent model than Theistic
Evolution, for integrating the scientific biological facts into an
overall Biblical theistic
picture.
God bless.
Stephen