Re: Developmental Evolutionary Biology
Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:39:59 -0400I wrote:
>lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>
>>Here, I think, is a more accurate portrayal of all TE's: We allow God's
>>intervention at any time in history, but we believe, based on the
>>scientific evidence and for various theological reasons, that a
>>non-interventionist scenario is currently the best working hypothesis
>>for studying and understanding biological history.
>
>To some readers this is going to read as though "we allow God's
>intervention at any time in history, but we really don't believe it
>happens." I don't believe that's what Loren means, although I really
>should let him answer for himself.
>
>I personally would prefer to say that we acknowledge that God may intervene
>at any time, and that indeed He may be intervening continually. However,
>based on experience and some theological reasons, we expect God's
>interventions (really "acts of oversight" is more appropriate) to be mostly
>law-like and not observable by normal physical means. This will be called
>"blurring creation and providence" by Stephen Jones. However, I think a
>more accurate characterization is simply that I'm not drawing the line
>between creation and providence where Stephen wants it.
>
>
Hmm (with growing appreciation for Loren's work in trying to make some of
these ideas clear) I note that my modification of Loren's tatement could be
misinterpreted. I said "we expect God's
>interventions (really "acts of oversight" is more appropriate) to be mostly
>law-like and not observable by normal physical means."
I meant that the fact of divine intervention is more often than not
nonobservable.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)