On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:27:33 -0400 you wrote:
TG>Stephen...wrote:
SJ>"Why not "a little bit of Intelligent Design"? :-) "
>
TG>It's all intelligently designed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Can a Biblical theist say otherwise?
Agreed. Perhaps a bad choice of words! :-)
TG>If God is intimately involved in the moment-by-moment workings of
the
>universe and if "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy
>counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
>to pass" (WCF III, 1; Eph. 1:11), then God is designing and purposing even
>if the matter can be explained by a scientific description, either by
>lawful behavior, by chance (which is lawful behavior), or by some
>contingent event.
>Why is this so hard to get across?
Its not. I agree with it 100%. I just allow God to create directly and
supernaturally in biological history as well as His normal working in
providence above. Why is this so hard to get across? :-)
TG>There may come a point in our scientific investigation in where we
say
>given what we know now, we can't imagine how this could happen. Maybe
>God did contravene his ordinary means of creational rule. Of course I can
>say this.
That's good! :-)
TG>But if my students were to explain their lab results in terms of
>some supernatural intervention, I'd probably mark them down. The nature of
>the scientific explanation is the look for "ordinary" explanations.
Agreed. PC does not claim that God intervenes directly in creation
today, or
that He created every species directly. It was only at major stratgeic
points
in biological history (eg. origin of life, origin of basic designs,
origin of man, etc), that PC would expect that God has intervened
directly.
TG>But
>science has a limited scope; science is not the source of ultimate truth;
>there is such a think a divine revelation and divine action that may not be
>explainable in terms of science (if so then it must merely be accepted as a
>creational given).
Agreed. We seem to agree of a lot. :-)
TG>I don't think that there is anything methodologically
>wrong with do this, but my point is and always has been that what we know
>seems quite capable of explaining the things that need to be explained for
>most things.
This is where I disagree. From what I read, evolution is capable of
explaining
(I mean in plausible detail) very little. Loren has made the point of
how weak
evolution is compared to physical science explanations.
TG>Appeal to the miraculous seems to be motivated by a
>theological perspective. I do this myself wrt to human origins. But, I do
>it because I believe the scriptures force me to that conclusion and not
>because I've concluded that a scientific explanation is impossible. I
>don't see any necessary theological motivation to do it anywhere else and
>so I'm free to anticipate "ordinary" means operating under the providence
>of God to explain what we see.
Agreed. We are approaching the issue from different theological
perspectives.
I am prepared to allow God a greater role in direct intervention in
nature. It
seems to me that the God of the Bible is like that. You don't see it
that
way. We must agree to differ, but it is good to clarify the
differences, so
we understand better each others positions.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------