It is the inherent uncertainty and lack of predictability of an
omnipotent, omniscient Mind or Will that makes appeals to intelligent
causation by God difficult to test or incorporate in a scientific framework.
Archaeologists can make reasonable predictions because they have some
familiarity with the subjects of study; i.e. archaeologists know something
about human creativity and they also have some knowledge of the technological
and physical constraints on human creativity. It is this lack of constraints
that makes God's intentions and actions a complete mystery to human beings
APART FROM REVELATION. How can we know what intelligent divine causation
in history will look like if God does not tell us? If God has told us
exactly what he has done (personal revelation is the only way to know the
mind and intentions of any personal being) then by all means our theology
can provide a fruitful source of scientific predictions. If you can
derive specific, testable theories of abiogenesis or the origin of higher
order taxa from Scripture, then by all means do so and evaluate them by
the evidence available. I don't think this can be done because of the
lack of scientific specificity of the creation account regarding these
types of specific questions.
Supernatural intelligent divine causation is always a possible
explanation for any event in history. But I don't see how miraculous acts
of God can be distinguished from God's providential working through
natural mechanisms unless we have a clear word from God Hiself. Until
PC's can provide a set of criteria that will enable us to distinguish
miraculous from providential actions of God apart from Scripture, then I
am afraid that MN is simply the most prudent assumption to make in light
of our finite knowledge.
By His sovereign grace,
Mike Farley
Indiana University