On Thu, 24 May 2001 08:42:48 +1000 Jonathan Clarke
<jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
> A recent example (April 9) was Paul Nelson's refusal to publicly answer
Loren
> Haarsma's question "Are carbon atoms intelligently designed?"
I can't imagine why Paul would be reluctant to answer that one. In my
mind carbon atoms are absolutely designed, along with every other
particle and force in the universe. Why did Loren even ask that question
in the first place, and what's wrong with design?
> In many ways the supernatural-natural split is completely unhelpful for
the
> reasons you state. What matters is that God is always working in the
world,
> whether the results are explicable to us or not. A miracle is not
necessarily
> something inexplicable to present science, or even something
fundamentally
> inexplicable (although they may be both), it is an event that has
significance
> in God's salvation history.
I think our pastor recently made a distinction here between miracles and
what we might call fortuitous events. I think he said something like the
latter is providential, not miraculous.
> Also people use "supernatural" with respect not
> just to God, but also the paranormal and demonic, which muddies the
waters.
Why? Demonic activity is real in today's world, e.g. dowsing for water
or underground utility lines. I would consider dowsing supernatural but
not miraculous.
>
> However, I think there is a need for a word to describe specific
actions by
> God in the world contrary to creaturely processes.
What's wrong with miracles?
Bill
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 22:37:11 EDT