On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:05:31 -0400 you wrote:
>BH>Stephen, your observation cuts both ways. Those of us who accept
>evolution are frequently puzzled by the question of just what it is
>that a PC objects to about evolution.
>
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>In a nutshell, it denies that God can (or has) intervened directly
in
>biological history. Theologically, TE seems a different view of God
>that one reads about in the Bible.
>
TG>Whoa! This evolutionary creationist (or theistic evolutionist, if
you
>prefer) denies neither the can or the has (God is "intervening" moment by
>moment by his providential rule; I'd suggest that ).
God is *sustaining* and *maintining* and *governing* "moment by
moment*.
He is not *intervening*, at least not in the ordinary sense of the
word.
TG>Also there is a big difference between "can" and "has". Not a
single
>theistic evolutionist that I know of has ever said that God cannot
>intervene directly in biological history. The question is simply "has he?"
>In our view, the evidence suggest that he has not "intervened" in the
>sense that he has contravened his ordinary means of governing the universe.
>The chance and contingency side of the evolutionary story give God plenty
>of room to accomplish his will in a way that is entirely consistent with
>ordinary means.
There is no way of knowing empirically if God has intervened directly
in
biological history, just as there is no way of knowing if He has
intervened
in human history. PC would however be open to the possibility, whereas
TE, while it does not rule it out, does not consider it an option.
TG>Sorry, Stephen, I see God using ordinary means all over the place
in the
>Bible. There is nothing inconsistent with the God of the Bible and the God
>of this TE. Even in the miraculous God seems to use ordinary means. God
>doesn't need a wind to pile up the waters of the sea (right, he could just
>scoot all the water molecules out of the way so that there is dry ground,
>couldn't he?) but he chose the cause a great wind to blow.
I have never denied this, and nor does PC. God's deliberate and direct
manipulation of natural events, precisely timed and targeted, would
fall within PC's definition of direct, supernatural intervention. Does
TE accept this type
of miraculous involvement in its understanding of evolution?
TG>My exception in the creation of man is rooted in the text of
scripture. I
>see no way to accomodate the creation of Adam with an evolutionary account.
>I see no such textual or theological difficulties when it comes to origin
>of life or origin of basic kinds.
I agree with the direct creation of man, but I could accept that Adam
was
made from existing genetic material. PC (or at least I) would see the
pattern
for Adam (ie, dust + breath) as applying to all animals, based on Heb.
text
of Genesis which indicates that both man and animals are made from
ground
and have breath of life.
TG>You complain all the time about some of us confusing you with
YEC's. Don't
>be so quick to give us EC's or TE's theologies that we don't have.
I don't. What you say above is what I thought you believe. Besides, I
think
there are differences between TE's (eg. you and Glenn). Glenn has
still not
clarified ir retracted his wave-maker machine analogy, which is IMHO
deistic.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------