>If you are suggesting that God
>"tweaks" the behavior of creation in ways that are beyond our investigation
>(shrouded in quantum uncertainty a la Heisenberg, for example), then I don't
>see how that differs in principle from the PC view.
>
>I believe it was Leibniz who objected so greatly to Newton's view that God
>needed to correct for supposed perturbations in planetary orbits in order to
>ensure stability for the solar system. Howard van Till argues forcefully
>that PC-type models should be rejected for the same reason today...because such
>models imply defects in the original creation, which seem unworthy of an
>omnipotent Creator. But it seems to me that the same objection should be
>raised against a model involving a Creator who "tweaks" his creation.
If God tweaks because of some inadequacy in His original design, then I'd
have to agree. But suppose He tweaks because He enjoys being involved with
His creation? For example, you might ask a person who builds and flys
model airplanes why he stands out in a field directing an airplane around
when he could go watch a video of an airplane. The answer is that he
_enjoys_ controlling the device he has made. In the creation account in
Genesis, each major phase of creation begins with God saying "let there
be..." or words to that effect. Suppose those words are not just an
announcement, but commands to the exquisitely tuned machine God has
made--nature--to carry out various phases of creation. And suppose God
does it this way simply for His good pleasure.
As I've said before, I suspect one possible means of tweaking is simply to
use His omniscience to know exactly what to perturb in an infinitesimal way
at exactly the right time to achieve a planned result. The nature of the
infinitesimal tweaking might be just a word. Genesis 1, Psalm 19, I Kings
19:11,12, Mark 4:39,....
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)