From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 12:57:24 EDT
Just a comment re your last line - Isn't elegance in some way the
essence of our every attribution to God's being and nature? In that
sense, elegance at least counts heavily, if not ruling. However, in our
more thoughtful moments, as yours is, we may allow that the true measure
of elegance may be other than our own.
JimA
Don Winterstein wrote:
> David Campbell wrote:
>
> "If God sometimes intervenes to fix up biochemical systems, why does
> He not do so in the case of genetic disorders? Note that this is not
> a very strong argument against God's involvement; if He determines (or
> influences) all things, but chooses to primarily run things using
> ordinary means, then the occurrence of mutations in no way contradicts
> His involvement. Only if we are expecting Johnson-style fingerprints
> all over everything does the lack of such prints on genetic disease
> become a problem." [Coloring mine.]
>
>
> This point deserves emphasis. Unless we know God's motives,
> it is presumptuous to question God's failure to act in particular ways
> that we deem beneficial. It is clear that God wants the world to
> appear as though it functions most of the time independently of his
> special interventions, but this desire for the appearance of
> independence in no way rules out the possibility of his special
> intervention from time to time. His desire for the appearance of
> independence would be motive enough for making any such special
> intervention humanly undetectable. If God thinks this way, then the
> search for ID is likely doomed to fail even though God may have
> intervened many times.
>
> A world where God intervenes from time to time to effect course
> corrections is less elegant that one that is sufficiently well-gifted
> to function in complete independence, but where is it written that
> elegance rules?
>
> Don
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bivalve <mailto:bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Genetic Blunders
>
> Whether one thinks that God is in some way responsible for genetic
> problems is more closely correlated with one's appraoch to
> predestination and free will than to evolutionary issues.
>
> However, I think that any position on this still raises problems
> for the ID approach, as Dick noted. If God sometimes intervenes
> to fix up biochemical systems, why does He not do so in the case
> of genetic disorders? Note that this is not a very strong
> argument against God's involvement; if He determines (or
> influences) all things, but chooses to primarily run things using
> ordinary means, then the occurence of mutations in no way
> contradicts His involvement. Only if we are expecting
> Johnson-style fingerprints all over everything does the lack of
> such prints on genetic disease become a problem.
>
> The topic of the level of God's control over creation also ties to
> the old discussion on process theology. Under a process or
> process-like scenario, can creation coerce the creator?
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
> <mailto:bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
> Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance
> at Droitgate Spa
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 12:58:22 EDT