I have edited out some earlier comments by both of us, in a hope to simplify (and shorten)
the message. Hopefully I have not snipped anything important.
Stephen E. Jones wrote:
> Reflectorites
>
> I thank Jonathan for his polite response. This is a refreshing change from
> the usual varying degrees of intimidation, denigration and abuse that I am
> accustomed to at the hands of TE/ECs on this Reflector!
We have all sinned in this regard. Perhaps the medium encourages irascibility. A good
sense of humour always helps!
> JC>I am sorry that my reply has been so tardy. !
>
> That's OK. Personally I think the emphasis on speed, at the expense of
> quality, bedevils this listserv.
>
> Nevertheless, this is such a long post, that I will break it into several
> chunks and answer it progressively over several days. To avoid total confusion,
> I will avoid answering replies to earlier parts until I have finished the
> original post.
>
> JC>Part of the reason has been my involvement with the visit of professor Sam
> >Berry to Canberra. His trip to Australia has been very successful and he appears to
> >have been well received among Christians, the media, and researchers. If this is
> >what it means to be marginalised, perhaps we need more marginalised people.
>
> That Berry has been "well received among Christians, the media, and
> researchers" in a single visit does not mean that his TE *position* is still
> not marginalised among both mainstream Christianity and science. Berry
> has been a leading TE for decades and yet AFAIK he has had very little
> impact on Christian thought. I would doubt that the majority Christians had
> ever heard of him. And I would expect that even less scientists had ever
> heard of his TE views.
>
> Yesterday I checked Amazon.com to see how Berry's books are selling,
> and they do not list *any, despite their claim to have over 2.5 million titles
> in their catalog! More on that in the next installment.
>
Hmmm..... perhaps we are using differing definitions of what we mean by marginalised. To me
a marginal position is one which is not where the action is. Being marginalised implies
being excluded or pushed aside by those who represent the main discussion. From where I
sit, most of the important work on understanding the interface between science and theology
(of which organic evolution is only a small part) is being done by groups such as the Ian
Ramsey Centre or Christians in Science in the UK, CTNS and the ASA the US, and perhaps
ISCAST or the ATF in Australia. This is not an exclusive list by any means. The
proposition of "God and evolution" rather than "God or evolution" is taken seriously by
most involved in the discussion amongst these groups who represent the leading edge of
theological research in these areas. Thus I argue that the positions we loosely call "TE/EC
does not appear to be either marginal or maginalised.
With respect to the impact of people such as Sam Berry on Christian thought, judging this
is hard to assess. However seeing that Sam has been chairman of the Research Scientists'
Christian Fellowship, president of Christians in Science, member of the General Synod of
the Church of England and its Board for Social Responsibility, Chairman of the
Environmental Issues Network of the Council of Churches of Britain and Ireland, and
chairman, Higher Education Committee of the Diocese of London (to name but a few roles he
has filled), one can hardly say that he has not been in many positions of influence in
Christian circles, at least in the UK. Nor has be hidden his views on God and evolution
under a bushel. If you still wish to say this represents a marginal influence, so be it.
I don't want to say more about Sam Berry (I am not not president of his fan club or a
self-appointed advocate of his ideas) but will close with the comment that if he is
marginalised, then I wish there were Christians in science marginalised to such an extent.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be using two indicators of whether someone or a
position is marginalised. One is whether or not a name appears in Amazon.com's lists, the
other is whether or not it is widely held amongst the Christian population. I am not sure
of the relevance of the first, and the second is a very doubtful criteria of truth.
However, if when you say that TE/EC is a minority position amongst the general Christian
population you a quite probably right. Indeed, you are quite correct in saying it is
marginalised, in the sense of being deliberately excluded, from some segments of the
Christian church. This is not the same as saying it is marginalised or a minority position
amongst theologians or among Christians in science (particularly the relevant sciences).
Whether the majority opinion is justified is something else. It may well be true that the
majority of people believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked, but that hardly
validates it.
So perhaps we are both right in what we are saying, from our perspectives. In this case we
need to use each other's terms carefully and understand where the other is coming from.
> JC>So let's try and refine what we mean by TE. I have not over
> >enamoured by the term (more on why later) but for the moment let's stick with it.
>
> I find this significant that TEs don't even like the term Theistic Evolution"!
> Van Till is the same:
>
> "In connection with this, I would like to stress that I am not advocating
> what some have called `theistic evolution.' In fact, the term theistic
> evolution strikes me as a prime example of the `methods employed'
> language. The natural process is given primary status by its appearance in
> the form of the noun evolution; divine action appears to be relegated to a
> secondary status by its confinement to the adjective theistic. `Theistic
> evolutionism,' therefore, is not an appropriate label for the position that I
> am advocating." (Van Till H.J., "The Fourth Day", 1986, p265)
>
> This suggests to me that, deep down, TEs are uncomfortable with
> their own position.
>
> TEs are hardly likely to improve their already marginalised position
> in either Christianity or science, if they don't even like the term
> "theistic evolution". Of course the TE/EC leaders can deny that TE
> is their own position, but then they leave their followers adrift.
>
> If TEs don't like the term "theistic evolution" then why don't they
> endeavour to come up with a term that they *do* like?
>
> This failure to clearly articulate and agree on a position, is probably
> a major reason why TE/EC is so marginalised.
I won't speak for others, but I am quite comfortable with my theological position (deep
down and superfically), while aware that, like all my positions on any issue, it is
incomplete and thus provisional. My dislike of EC or EC is that it links a theological
position (theism) with a scientific theory (organic evolution) and creates the
misapprehension (in my mind) that somehow that theism is an integral part of the way the
scientific theory operates and that the scientific theory is an integral part of how the
theological position works. I don't see this as being the case, rather I would see the two
as different, but complementary, levels of explanation. As I have said before, I would
find terms such as "theistic sedimentology" or "theistic plate tectonics", or even
"theistic quantum mechanics" equally clumsy, even though I would argue that God works
through quantum mechanics or plate tectonics. Personally I think prefer when discussing
creation from a theological perspective to describe myself as being a continuous
creationist. With respect to science I would regard this as being compatible with all past
and present theories of origins.
On a related note, isn't it interesting that so many people are uncomfortable with the
labels used to describe their position? I am not enamoured with theistic evolution, you
object to the "artisan metaphor" and the word "irruptive", people who believe in a young
earth and a world wide flood don't like "YEC". What does this say about our discourse and
our perceptions of our own positions and that of others? Perhaps we all are to quick to
label positions we disagree with while all to aware to the subtleties of our own?
> JC>All TE's that I have encountered would see their position as quite different
> >from that of DE (a useful term and thank you for reminding us of it and the
> >definition from Erickson).
>
> That TEs might *like* to "see their position as quite different from that of
> DE" does not mean that it *is* different from DE. If some TEs fit the
> description of DE, then IMHO they *are* DEs, whether they like it or not!
>
> JC>So where does TE differ from DE? I would see that they differ
> >in three areas. First of all that deism regards God has giving only the initial
> >impetus to creation and then leaving the rest to unfold by its own internal logic.
>
> I do not necessarily regard DEs as deists or advocating deism.
> Classical Deists were non-Christian unbelievers who denied *any*
> supernatural intervention by God in the world, including
> supernatural revelation (ie. the Bible) and the Biblical miracles:
>
> "Deism, from deus, although etymologically synonymous with theism,
> from theos, has been distinguished from it since the middle of the
> sixteenth century, and designates a system admitting the existence of a
> personal Creator, but denying his controlling presence in the world, his
> immediate moral government, and all supernatural intervention and
> revelation." (Hodge A.A., "Outlines of Theology", 1983, reprint, p48)
>
> Deistic evolutionists who are Christians, OTOH, while they would
> deny restrict supernatural intervention in natural history, would not
> deny supernatural revelation and intervention in salvation history.
>
> For example, Michael Corey, who has written a book entitled, "Back
> to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution", is a *Christian*
> Deistic Evolutionist.
>
> So, when I use the term DE, I am (unless otherwise indicated) referring
> to those *Christians* who deny supernatural intervention in natural
> history. That would include Van Till and others who espouse doctrines
> like "functional integrity" and "gapless economy" to support this
> denial of supernatural intervention in natural history.
>
> But the term DE would not include those TEs who do not go so far as
> Van Till in denying apriori the possibility of God's supernatural
> intervention in natural history.
I suspect that "Christian deism" is an oxymoron. I agree with Hodge's definition of deism,
so I can't see how a consistent deist could be in any sense Christian, at least if they use
deism to mean what Hodge does. I have not read Corey, so cannot comment on his position.
Therefore if people call themselves "Christian deists" and adhere to classic Christian
doctrine, I suspect they are using a different definition of deism. They are probably
either ( by my definition, based on Hooykaas) either theists or semi-deists. From your
description, I would call them semi-deists.
It is important to differentiate between saying that God has worked entirely through
"creation's formative economy" and saying that He must. That is a good way to
differentiate (in my understanding) between theism and deism. A theist might say that God
works entirely through creation's formative economy to produce stars and planets from
nebulae, but that we know this only by seeing how God has worked. There is no a priori
reason to say that this is how He went about things. On the other hand a deist would say
that God can only work through creation's formative economy, and indeed would, as you have,
probably limit God to setting the original boundary conditions.
Howard can defend his position if he wishes, so I will only note that he argues his
position is destinct from deism. Caution in labelling it such is warranted.
> JC>A theist would
> >always regard God as having some form sovereignty over events.
>
> Agreed, but this is too vague. What *exactly* does "having some form
> sovereignty over events" mean to a TE/EC? A DE could argue that setting
> up the laws and boundary conditions of the universe in advance to produce
> life, plants, animals and man is "having some form sovereignty over
> events".
>
> In my experience TE/ECs are impenetrably vague on this crucial point. I
> hope Jonathan bites the bullet and spells out in greater detail what he
> means by "God...having some form sovereignty over events".
Maybe we spend too much time writing late at night or early in the morning (grin)! My
judicious caution comes out as being vague. Sigh...... More seriously, I think "setting
up the laws and boundary conditions of the universe in advance to produce life, plants,
animals and man" is an important part of it, but not the only part, as I believe that God
is continuously interacting with and sustaining the world. If that is all there was to it,
I agree, it does approach deism. But for me, God is continously at work as creator and
sustainer.
Maybe my vagueness (I can't speak for others) is due to a mixture of caution and
ignorance. Polkinghorne and Russell, to name but two, have written some interesting stuff
on divine action from top down, bottom up, and sideways perspectives. I think this is
worthy stuff, but I am cautious. I don't suspect we will never fully understand divine
action in this world. The efforts of Thomas Aquinas to integrate theology and Aristotle
were important and useful, however too strict adherence to his approach set the scene for
Galileo. In the same way it was important to understand divine action in the light of
Newtonian mechanics, however this led to Paley and deism.
I don't see Divine action as an X in any physics equation, or that there necessarily will
be one. Creation is about creativity and relationship, and ultimately our understanding of
God and His world will be through the language of relationship and creativity, no science
and mathematics. Seeking to explore Divine action in the world may well be akin to
characters in a novel trying to find evidence of the author's action in theirs, entirely
within the confines of that novel. Humility all round is a good thing when discussing
divine action. Have you read Dorothy Sayer's "The Mind of the Maker"? It is a very
interesting exploration of human creativity as an illustration for Divine creativity and
sovereignty. It is long out of print, but you may be in luck with some university
libraries.
> JC>Secondly, theists because of this recognise the major role of divine
> >providence in the world, which deists deny. ".
>
> See above. We are not talking about non-Christian "deists" but about
> *Christian* deistic evolutionists!
>
> JC>Thirdly, deists deny revelation and that that implies.
>
> See above. By DE I mean *Christian* DEs!
I don't think there are any Christian deists in the true sense of both words. A deist who
accepts revelation and Biblical miracles, as I have said, would be a semi deist or (shock!
horror!) a closet theist.
> SJ>"Deistic Evolution...is perhaps the best way to describe one variety of
> >>what is generally called theistic evolution... deistic evolution is
> >>identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies that there is any
> >>direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative process."
> >>(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, p480)
I would agree with this, but again note I doubt that a consistent deistic evolutionist
could be in any sense Christian.
> >>JC>In this case the above statement cannot be sustained.
>
> Yes it can. See above.
>
The original statement I disagreed with was that TE/EC was marginalised. If you are
still convinced that they are, what evidence would be needed to change your mind?
For me to change my mind you would have to show that most of the theolgical works published
in the area of science-faith interaction reject some form of TE/EC and that EC/EC people
were being excluded from both sciencific and theological discussions and vocational
oppotunities. So far I have seen no evidence of that either from what you have said or
from personal observation and experience (and I periodically lecture in theology as well as
research in academia).
> JC>AFAIK is a new one on me - does it mean "As far as I know?"
>
> Yes. There are various lists of Internet acronyms, on the 'Net, e.g.
> http://www.net-mag.com/1-2/acronyms.htm.
>
> Other common acronyms I can remember seeing on the Reflector include:
>
> OTOH on the other hand
> IMHO in my humble opinion
> BTW by the way
> ROTFL rolls on the floor, laughing
Thanks! ILSNED (I learn something new every day)
> JC>"Distinctive TE/EC contributions to science" is another version of the old question
> >as to whether there is a distinctively Christian version of X. In some cases this
> >(art, literature, ethics, for example) this may well be the case. Is it true it all
> >cases? I do think so. Is there a specifically "Christian" way to bake a cake,
> >build a telescope, study the created world?
>
> TE/ECs make this point often. It is meant to place creationists on the horns
> of a dilemma. If the creationist answers "yes" he is treated to ridicule for
> claiming that there is a distinctively Christian way to `bake a cake'"? But if
> he answers "no" then he is told, "well why do you demand "a distinctively
> Christian way to `study the created world?'"
>
> This seems to me to be an example of the Complex Question fallacy:
>
> "Complex Question. "When did you stop beating your wife?" That is a
> perfect example of asking a complex question. It isn't really one question; it
> is two. If only one response is given, no matter which question it answers,
> the other question has an implied answer that may not be true. The debater
> here is saying, reaccept this (false) implication because of this other (true)
> implication." It assumes a simple yes-or-no answer to a complex yes-and-
> no question. In this respect it is the opposite of a reductive fallacy because
> it unnecessarily complicates the question. Besides that, at least one of the
> questions is based on a false assumption. It is the false assumption that
> usually sticks in the listeners' minds and wins them over to the false
> proposition." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason: An
> Introduction to Logical Thinking", 1990, p108)
>
Why is it an example of one Geisler's "complex question" fallacies? I think it is a very
valid and genuine question. I am not trying to trap you, but to understand your position.
In the process I will learn and probably change my own understanding (and indeed have done
so). To do that I must ask questions, some of which have simple answers, some of which
require complex answers. So, once again, do you think there is a uniquely Christian way to
design an airliner (seeing you object to bakery) or study the world? If so, why, and
equally, if not, why not? Please answer in your own words, rather than long quotes. Your
opinion is far more interesting to me than exerpts from others.
Ultimately this is a recasting of very old question in Christian philosphy vz a viz secular
knowledge: "Athens or Jerusalem?" or "Athens and Jerusalem?". There are merits to both
positions (I hold to both for different fields!) and I don't think we will resolve it
here. But this does not mean we should not explore it.
On another point, you talk about TE/EC folk and creationists in opposition. We all all
creationists in a theological sense, are we not? We would (TE/EC folk and "creationists")
alike believe that God is creator and sustainer. We differ over the way or mode of Divine
activity, not the basic nature of that relationship. That is why again I prefer to
contrast continuous creation or episodic creation, or compare theism with deism and
semi-deism, rather than set up "creationism" against "TE/EC".
> JC>My understanding, from reading Foster, Jaki, and Hooykaas
>
> I know of the last two, but who is "Foster"?
>
Martin Foster wrote a classic paper (in the 1930's if I recall correctly, my copy is not
here) on the doctrine of creation and the rise of modern science. He was one of the first
to explore this relationship. I have head that Alfred Whitehead was the first, but have
not been able to confirm it. Anyway, Foster's paper was quite revolutionary when it was
published. It's most accessible form (and where I read it) is in O'Conner and Oakley's
1969 collection of papers "Creation, the Impact of an Idea" (Charles Schribner's, NY).
> JC>is that the scientific approach is based on a world view that is
> >essentially Christian.
>
> This was true once, but not any longer. Today the "scientific approach is
> based on a world view that is" materialistic-naturalistic. which is
> "essentially" anti-"Christian"!
>
Please explain what evidence there is that modern science is essentially anti-Christian,
when this occurred, and if all sciences are equally effected.
> JC>I would see as futile attempting to say that there can be a specifically
> >"Christian" science although there are specially Christian ideas on the
> >application of science, especially in the areas of ethical uses of scientific
> >knowledge and it the ethical ways of obtaining scientific knowledge.
>
> Inasmuch as science involves human individuals:
> "But briefly, what Kuhn did was to advance the idea that the involvement
> of things beyond merely the empirical is both inevitable and legitimate in
> science. We humans cannot even in principle avoid having various of our
> broad metaphysical and value convictions play some role in our science.
> Our senses and our reason are not simply detachable from deeper streams
> that flow within us, so we cannot construct a "pure" science employing
> only those detached faculties. This at least suggests the possibility that even
> political themes, religious themes or other things that deeply shape our
> being might have some inescapable perhaps even legitimate role to play in
> our science and scientific theorizing." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
> Beginnings", 1996, p119);
>
> and the Bible says that "The fear [ie. reverence] of the LORD is the
> beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10); and commands that all men are to love
> God with all their mind (Mt 22:37); and that *every* thought is to be made
> obedient to Christ (2Cor 10:5); I would claim that not only that "there can
> be a specifically `Christian' science" but that *in principle* "a specifically
> `Christian' science" is the *only* true science. That is, if every scientist was
> a Christian, then science would be truer and better.
>
I think I agree with you. However, if all scientists were Christian, would their science
be better because their metaphysics is better, or simply because one would hope they would
be more ethical in their practice of science, humble in their dealings with each other,
more concerned about issues of justice in its application? Once again we all fall short,
however.
> JC>I personally don't like the term "TE" because it conflates a theological position
> >(theism) with a scientific explanation. TE really as clumsy a term a "theistic
> >plate tectonics" or "theistic gravity".
>
> See above. But the question before us is not whether there is a a "theistic
> plate tectonics" or a "theistic gravity" but whether there is a "theistic
> *evolution*"?
>
And why is "theistic evolution" any different from "theistic plate tectonics" or "theistic
quantum mechanics"? Whether God works in an through a specific process that scientists
believe they have identified is quite separate (in my mind) from the validity of that
process as a scientific theory.
> JC>My understanding of theism (as opposed to deism or semi deism) does not presuppose
> any >particular mode of divine action...
>
> OK. Would that "any particular mode of divine action" include supernatural
> guidance and/or intervention in natural history?
Supernatural guidance would be part of it, but a theist would not consider divine action as
"intervention". A priori a theist would not rule out "supernatural intervention", but also
would not be distressed if the world were a seamless whole either.
> JC>but rather Takes at its starting point that God works in the world, by creation and
> >providence, so that what science is discovers since simply the way in which God works.
>
> Since modern materialistic-naturalistic "science" rules out apriori that there
> is a Creator who supernaturally guided and/or intervened at strategic points
> in natural history:
How does science do this? Those who are materialistic-naturalistic in world view would
rule this out, but this does not make it true. Materialists and naturalists have always
ruled out divine action, regardless of whether their science is modern, classical, or
ancient. Christians in science have a different opinion as do theologians. Why do you
prefer the opinions of non-Christians and indeed anti-theists in this area of that of
Christians in science and theologians?
> "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense
> is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the
> supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
> some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant
> promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
> community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
> commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
> institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
> for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
> priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
> and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
> counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
> that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
> door...To appeal to all omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the
> regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
> (Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons," review of "The Demon-
> Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New
> York Review, January 9, 1997, p31);
>
Since when have Sagan or Lewontin spoken for all scientists, let alone science (there is
nobody who can do that). How is this comment relevant, except to show the opinion of one
scientist?
> how would such a materialistic-naturalistic "science...discover...the way in
> which God works" if God did in fact work by supernaturally guiding and/or
> intervening intervened at strategic points in natural history?
>
> JC>Deism however, as you have correctly pointed out presumes that God only
> >works through secondary causes, and then insists that God's role is confined to the
> >beginning. Semi-deists recognise, like deists, that the world operates by its
> >internal logic. However for God to specifically act He must intervene in the world
> >by an irruptive event.
>
> See my messages to Howard. This term is IMHO pejorative. If God
> intervenes in the world, He has already planned nature to accommodate
> it seamlessly, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:
>
I read through your comments on and discussion with Howard. I fail to see how "irruption"
is pejorative. It was not my intention to be pejorative, so please forgive me. However I
could like your explanation as to why you find this term offensive and would value your
suggestion as to an alternative, better, and less offensive word which could describe an
understanding of divine action which "interferes" with or "intervenes" in the world.
> "It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks
> the laws of Nature. It doesn't. If I knock out my pipe I alter the
> position of a great many atoms: in the long run, and to an infinitesimal
> degree, of all the atoms there are. Nature digests or assimilates this
> event with perfect ease and harmonises it in a twinkling with all other
> events. It is one more bit of raw material for the laws to apply to and
> they apply. I have simply thrown one event into the general cataract of
> events and it finds itself at home there and conforms to all other events.
> If God annihilates or creates or deflects a unit of matter He has created
> a new situation at that point. Immediately all Nature domiciles this new
> situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it. It
> finds itself conforming to all the laws. If God creates a miraculous
> spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any
> laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy
> follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child
> is born. We see every day that physical nature is not in the least
> incommoded by the daily inrush of events from biological nature or
> from psychological nature. If events ever come from beyond Nature
> altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will
> rush to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a
> cut in our finger, and there hasten to accommodate the newcomer. The
> moment it enters her realm it obeys all her laws. Miraculous wine will
> intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired
> books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption,
> miraculous bread win be digested. The divine art of miracle is not an
> art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding
> new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law's proviso, "If
> A, then B ": it says, " But this time instead of A, A2," and Nature,
> speaking through all her laws, replies, "Then B2" and naturalises the
> immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess."
> (Lewis C.S., "Miracles", 1963, pp63-64).
>
I support what Lewis is saying (although I recall he does not always hold consistently to
this position in this book). He is basically arguing here for what Polkinghorne and
others would call top-down causation, a mode of divine action I like. Of course one would
not wish to press his analogy too far for all sort's of reasons. The universe is not the
body of God in Christian theology, for example (which smacks of pantheism).
> JC>Such events are not amenable to science
>
> Disagree. Science can handle singularities like the Big Bang, so
> there is no reason in principle why science cannot study supernatural
> interventions by God, at least from the point where such interventions
> enter the natural world.
Point taken. Perhaps it is better to say that science can study singularities if and when
we know that there is a singularity present, rather than just absence of data. It is
especially helpful if we have other reasons also for suspecting that may be a singularity
lurking about.
> JC>and the history of
> >life must have witnessed at least several such events.
>
> Is Jonathan here saying that believes that God *has* intervened in the
> world, apart from the Biblical miracles?
I would see this as an open question. I see no evidence that God has necessarily
"intervened" as you would put it, or "acted outside the creation economy" as Howard would
say. Nor do I say he must. If someone comes up with good evidence for it OK (as opposed
to simply absence of evidence for an alternative mode of divine activity), but we would
have to avoid the hole formed by the God of the gaps as we tiptoe round the edge. However
I think it is a good working hypothesis to say that creation has a seamless formation
economy. So long as we avoid the trap of deism, again I think that is OK.
> JC>However in this conversation we seem to be stuck with the term, so I will continue to
> use it.
>
> If Jonathan continues to use terms like "irruptive" for God's
> intervention into his own world, then I will continue to argue that it
> is pejorative and inappropriate!
See my comments about. I again apologise for any offence.
> [continued]
>
> Steve
>
I look forward to the next instalment.
God Bless
Jonathan