<<I think that the key to understanding my position is to recognize that I'm
a Calvinist and follow the understanding of scripture as outlined in the
Westminster Confession of Faith concerning the decree of God and his
providence.>>
And that's fine. But if someone doesn't share your particular creed, why
should you object to their model on "scientific" grounds? You reject
"intervention" but embrace "tweaking," but you do so not based on science, but
on a biblical presupposition. That's okay, just be clear about it.
ICR does the same thing (I think you're closer to the facts, of course!)
<<I believe that God is intimately involved in the moment by moment workings
of his creation--in other words, tweaking is the norm. Observed regularity
is due to God's regular governance. Does this make me PC? I don't think
so, because God's actions, due to his own choice of regular governance, are
understandable in terms of scientific investigation. Thus, I can describe
God's work in terms that utilize secondary causes. As long as I can do
that then there is no intervention.>>
I don't really get this. It's sort of a cart and horse thing. You WANT to
believe in the "tweaking" model IN ORDER TO be able to explain it
scientifically (or so you seem to say). That is precisely the criticism
Johnson has levelled at the Calvin crowd. The desire to accomodate modern
science is coloring your judgments, in his opinion. Based on what you've
written above, I have the same concern. What if someone CAN'T describe God's
working in such terms, because it is miraculous? Why should that judgment be
changed just so it can be manhandled by naturalism?
<<One of the difficulties here is that we often fail to recognize that God's
interaction with the world is totally unlike our own. We MUST come to
grips with this. The existence of each thing in the world is dependent on
God's sustaining will. Things have the properties that they do because of
God's sustaining will. Causes have effects because of God's decree and
Providence. God does not move matter around like game pieces.>>
How do you know this? Where do we find this proscription of God's activities
re: matter? In the creed, perhaps. But once again, you are expressing a
preference, a theological one--and not necessarily the right one. But it is
not science, and not scientifically compelled. It is the lens through which
you view the data. Again, that's okay, but we need to be clear about it,
because your criticism of PC is not scientifically based, IMO.
Jim