On Mon, 07 Aug 1995 13:46:50 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>(I'm back from vacation. :-)
Welcome back! :-)
LH>ABSTRACT: I answer Stephen's question about "how exactly God was
>involved with the world in Theistic Evolution."
>Two weeks ago, Stephen Jones replied on this topic:
LH>Deistic Evolution proposes that God was essentially uninvolved in
>the natural world after the initial creative act (at least until
>human beings came along); Theistic Evolution proposes that God
>interacted with the natural world (during biological developmental
>history) in the same way as his *providential care* of the world
>today.
[...]
>SJ> I find the above distinction useful. However, I would like to
>know how exactly God was "involved" with the world under TE. Glenn
>has likened his version of TE with a wave maker machine. The maker
>sets it us and departs, with no further involvement (if I understand
>Glenn correctly). Terry, OTOH says if the tape of life was re-run,
>then it would come out exactly the same. This is in
>contradistinction to Gould who has said it the tape was re-run, man
>would probably not arise. How does Terry's tape-playing mechanism
>differ from Gould's?
LH>Here it comes: my best answer to the question, "How exactly was
>God 'involved' with the world under TE?"
LH>Theistic Evolution covers a range of opinions on these four issues:
>God's involvement in natural law, God's involvement in "chance"
>events, the level of God's foresight and pre-planning, God's use of
>supernatural actions. The range of opinions on these four issues
>corresponds to the range of orthodox theological positions on God's
>providential action.
LH>GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN NATURAL LAW.
>One view is that God proscriptively determines every action and
>interaction in the universe; natural laws are merely descriptions of
>God's regular ways of operating
There are many sub-points in what you have written. I will have to
deal with them one-by-one. Because they will become too long, I will
break them up into several parts. Your points are too good to be
rushed! :-)
I agree with this fully. However, I see a distinction between laws
and events. God ensured the natural laws of mechanics operated that
enabled Eve's arm to reach out and take the forbidden fruit, but the
event was caused primarily by Eve's will.
LH>God is just as involved with "natural" events as with supernatural
events;
Both agree and disagree. There is a qualitative distinction between
natural and supernatural events. God may be involved indirectly in
natural events but directly in supernatural events. A natural event
is not proof of God working directly, but a supernatural event is.
LH>the "apparent stability" of matter, energy, and natural laws is
>only due to God's continued sustaining activity, just as the apparent
>stability of an image on a c.r.t. screen is due to constant electron
>bombardment.
Agree. Good analogy.
LH>Another view (perhaps an opposite extreme to the first) is that
>matter and energy have an "ontologically genuine" stability; natural
>laws are proscriptive in the sense that they describe the unchanging
>properties of what was created;
I am not sure what the above means. If it means that matter has an
independent existence apart from God's continually willing it to be,
then I disagree.
LH>God is free to directly intervene into this ordinary operation of
>nature whenever he wishes;
Agree. This is evident by Biblical miracles, eg. Jesus stilling the
storm, sun standing still in Joshua, etc.
LH>God's supernatural actions are of a fundamentally different
>character than "natural" events;
This is not necessarily the case. God could intervene by using
natural laws. Some of Biblical miracles are due to precise timing and
coincidence of many natural events, eg. plagues of Egypt, destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.