On Mon, 07 Aug 1995 13:54:55 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: T.E. does not _a_priori_ rule out God's miraculous
>intervention. It argues, based on theological and scientific data, that
>it is the best working hypothesis for studying biological history.
>Stephen Jones wrote to Bill Hamilton (and the rest of the group):
>SJ> You (along with other TE's) believe that God only works
>through natural causes, with possible exceptions in the origin of life
>and man. I believe God works through natural causes normally, but
>directly and supernaturally at strategic points, including the
>origin of life, the origin of basic kinds, and the origin of man.
>
SJ>IMHO those TE's who believe that God acts supernaturally in the
origin
>of life and man, are really PC's. Consistent TE's should not need
>God's direct intervention anywhere. If God acted directly in the
>creation of life and man, why not other strategic points?
[. . .]
SJ>What Jim Bell and I would like to know is why is a supernaturally
>acting God is seemingly ruled out, apriori?
LH>This is a misapprehension of the T.E. position -- though it seems
>to be a frustratingly common one, so you're in good company, Stephen
>and Jim.
That's a nice way of putting it! :-)
LH>Theistic Evolution does NOT _a_priori_ rule out God acting
>supernaturally anywhere, including biological history.
I did say "seemingly"!
LH>We all agree that there are certain events (both historical and
current)
>wherein it is eminently reasonable for a Christian to believe that a
>supernatural event has happened.
Yes. But PC would apparently believe in a wider range of events where
it would be "eminently reasonable" for God to have acted, eg. origin
of basic kinds/designs.
So my argument is that TE differ only in degree, not in kind.
Therefore
if TE holds to some supernatural interventions by God in biological
history, eg. origin of life, origin of man, etc, then TE is really a
minimal
form of PC.
IMHO, the only true and pure form of TE is that which holds that God
worked entirely through "natural" causes.
LH>We also agree that there are certain events (both historical and
current)
>where it is eminently reasonable for a Christian (for theological,
>philosophical, and scientific reasons) to expect that the event is in
>principle explainable in terms of the regular and continuous operation of
>natural mechanisms -- even when that explanation is far from obvious at
>the moment -- and to continue investigation with that working hypothesis.
>(Examples I have cited in previous posts include galactic formation,
>zygotic development, microevolution, and -- in an extreme hypothetical
>case -- an unaccountable five degree bend in an atomic beam.)
I have no problem with this. I do not believe that science should give
up
its dogged search for naturalistic mechanisms. I just believe that in
the
question of *origins* the possibility of direct supernatural
intervention
by an Intelligent Designer should not be ruled out.
LH>Theistic Evolution looks at the scientific and theological data and
>concludes that it seems very reasonable to place the developmental history
>of plants and animals into the second category.
The example you gave are not *origin* events, so PC would have no
problem
with them either.
To date no really sharp distinction exists between your TE position
and
my PC position. I am pleased to say that we seem to be converging
somewhat? :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------