Re: Stereotypes and reputations

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Stereotypes and reputations

> Craig, George,
>
> George's response illustrates a bit where I think Craig's terminology is
> proving unhelpful.
>
> It seems that George is equating Craig's position with "philosophical
> naturalism".
>
> I believe that Craig means that "totally natural development" means that
> only God's ordinary means of governing the universe are at work, i.e. no
> miraculous interventions.
> Thus #4 is still a possible view for a Christian holding to a full- blown
> evolutionary creation view.
>
> While I am much less dogmatic about #4, my personal bias is toward
> accepting it. I see no fundamental theological or scientific reason for
> thinking otherwise.

OK - as I noted, I wasn't sure what Craig meant by that. But whether you
says "It's entirely natural & no 'God' has anything to do with it" or "God
works entirely through natural processes," it's a claim that goes beyond
science. & even a statement that doesn't involve God, such as "Science can
in principle explain the development of living things completely" is
meta-scientific.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

Personally I agree with your last sentence - i.e., there are good
theological reasons (in addition to the empirical successes of science so
far) to accept #4 in the way that you interpret it.

 
Received on Sun Jul 31 07:24:27 2005