Re: The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago

Don Winterstein wrote (DW):

DW: >...But you're arguing that God for some reason felt obliged to use
wholly natural means to prepare the world for humans and yet was free to
use wholly supernatural means to go from one species to the next. This
would constitute glaring inconsistency (as David Campbell recently
suggested). If there indeed was an important reason for God to use
natural means to prepare the world, why wouldn't the same reason
constrain him to use natural means to the degree possible for generating
the different species? Conversely, if natural means aren't important
for generating species, they shouldn't be important for preparing their
environment, either.<

PR: I have never suggested that God is in any way either inconsistent or
constrained or capricious. Rather, I believe he works through "natural"
means whenever possible (but of course, as Creator, he is the Author of
what happens in these cases, as well). It was not possible for the
resurrection of Christ and other declared biblical miracles. I also
believe that in many or most cases speciation by "purely natural" means
is possible. On the other hand, as a biochemist I am not as confident as
dogmatic atheists like Dawkins that there is no problem with "scaling
Mount Improbable". I suspect there might really be countless cases in
the evolution of the biosphere where there wasn't enough time for some
living systems to "walk the natural microevolutionary path". So there,
divine "supernatural intervention" might help. But for theological
reasons, I think God would rather hide his footprints behind quantum
uncertainty, and science would be unable to see it (what I have called
God's "hidden options"). I have no idea how frequent such cases might
be, but I consider it unreasonable to assume there are none.

PR: In my last post, I did not try to make a distinction between
organisms and their environment, as far as a need for such "hidden
options" is concerned, but I just considered the biosphere as a whole,
painting with a broad brush.

PR: On the basis of the creation story in Gen.1, I believe there were 3
clear cases of massive divine intervention, indicated by the use of the
verb "to create" in verses 1, 21, and 27, corresponding to the creation
of the 3 novel dimensions of the physical, the sentient/psychological,
and the mental/spiritual (where the second and third creative acts
occurred in the course of an uninterrupted biological evolution).

DW: >(Actually I'm an ID sympathizer in that I think God has used
supernatural means from time to time, but only if and when the world
would not conform to his will without such interventions. I'd be OK
without most such interventions, but at the moment I simply can't
believe they weren't required. On the other hand, once the basic forms
of life were established, it's reasonable that wholly natural means gave
rise to large numbers and varieties of different species.)<

PR: Here, I feel as you do, although I am talking about God's "hidden
options" of selecting particular outcomes of quantum events, rather than
interventions. But I'm not quite so sure about the ease of further
"wholly natural" evolution of "basic forms of life" once they were
established.

DW: >If God takes shortcuts for one process, we'd expect him to take
shortcuts for other processes as well. Why? Because we'd like
to believe God has important underlying reasons for his actions. If he
were inconsistent, we'd get the impression he's capricious;
capriciousness would not be conducive to faith and trust. <

DW: >My theological perspective expects God to be consistent here: He
wanted a world with humans whose origin would be as independent of him
as possible. This is because, ultimately, he was seeking a wife, not a
child. (Why shouldn't God make a world that would allow him the deepest
possible sort of spiritual relationship--a relationship of consenting
adults--rather than just a father-child relationship?) If God were
seeking a child, why wouldn't he do the whole creation in six days? A
wife, on the other hand, must come to maturity in some sense apart
from him, and that takes time and as much absence of divine intervention
as possible. <

PR: This is an interesting and beautiful way to formulate the situation!
And I agree with you. I usually said God wants to be loved out of a free
decision, like the one between a couple getting married. However, for
children, as well, I would consider a six-day creation woefully
inadequate. They also have to learn to grow to maturity.

DW: >(George Murphy teaches that all of God's revelation is kenotic. My
theology explains why God chose that route.)<

PR: The point where I start disagreeing with George (and with Howard Van
Till) is where he insists that this kenosis requires that in creation
God restricted himself to using "fully natural" means exclusively - in
the sense of Howard's "Creation's Functional Integrity".

DW: >Why should we need to feel important? Well, as the Church we
owe our sense of importance to our religion, which is anthropocentric,
as I stated right at the beginning. And John 3:16. Many scientists
look at the scale of the world and conclude that man is zilch.
Christianity doesn't allow us to do that. <

PR: You are right. If our sense of importance is based on God's will and
plan for us, it is quite appropriate.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)