Re: [asa] anti-evolutionism and deism

I think Louise's and Dave S.'s comments are dead-on.

Here's also something I read recently by Wolfhart Pannenberg, which might be
helpful (from "Towards a Theology of Nature, Essays on Science and Faith"
ed. by Ted Peters (http://tinyurl.com/2a4kau)):

If the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, then it is not
possible to understand fully or even appropriately the proceses of nature
without any reference to that God. If, on the contrary, nature can be
appropriately understood without reference to the god of the Bible, then
that God cannot be the creator of the universe, and consequently he cannot
be truly God and be trusted as a source of moral teaching either. To be
sure, the reality of God is not incompatible with some form of abstract
knowledge concerning the regularities of natural processes, a knowledge that
abstracts from the concreteness of physical reality and therefore may be
able also to abstract from the presence of God in his creation. But such
abstract knowledge of regularities should not claim full and exclusive
competence regarding the explanation of nature; if it does so, the reality
of God is denied by impliciation. The so-called methodological atheism of
modern science is far from pure innocence. It is a highly ambiguous
phenomenon. Yet its very possibility can be regarded as based on the
unfailing faithfulness of the creator God to the creation, providing it with
the unviolable regularities of natural processes that themselves become the
basis of individual and more precarious and transitory natural systems --
from stars and mountains and valleys and oceons to the wonders of plants and
animal life, resulting in the rise of the human species.

("Theological Questions to Scientists," pp. 15-16.)

On 4/20/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> To follow up on all the excellent notes but especially Jon Tandys and
> Michaels. I have never figured out if:
>
> 1)God established and maintains the laws that we observe
> or
> 2)The laws that we observe are simply the normal (ie usual) way that God
> interacts with the universe. Implies that God continually makes
> decisions as to how matter-energy and space-time will behave. This
> would imply a view of providence that in some matters at least is
> extremely particular.
>
> I tend to lean towards #1 but don't have any real solid reasons for that
> choice. The Bible does not seem to say anything that applies or at
> least I have not found it. Doubt any experiment could tell the
> difference and am not sure it matters in any case as I am not a deist.
>
> Dave W
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 20 09:15:29 2007