Re: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS

Regarding perfection the 1st time, I really like the way Keith Miller puts
it in his article "Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation" (see:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html):

"God's activity is typically progressive in time, and potentially
understandable in terms of cause-and-effect sequences of physical or
historical events. God's revelation of His character and His plan of
redemption was a gradual one -- first to Abram, then through Moses and the
prophets to the nation of Israel, then through His own incarnation and the
indwelling of His Holy Spirit to the world. Our own conforming to Christ's
image is a process, even a painful one, not an instantaneous state achieved
upon our conversion. He even commissioned us, His sin-warped creatures, to
be the agents of His redemptive work. Efficiency is clearly not a priority
in God's redemptive activity; why should we require it of His creative
activity?"

On 11/14/07, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> It was "intelligent design" that created the transitional form "CDESIGN
> PROPONETSISTS", and further intelligent design that later corrected it to
> "design proponents". The question has been asked, why can't Intelligent
> Design take in a method of gradual change employed by the Creator?
>
> Of course, this was evidence of fallible human efforts, rather than a
> perfect Deity engaging in the transitional forms. But here's a question:
> Does God always do everything perfect the first time? What about His
> efforts to bring an individual to salvation -- doesn't that involve a
> gradual process, interrupted by certain "catastrophic" events in many
> cases? What about His efforts to sanctify and purify the Body of Christ as
> a whole (cf. Eph 5:26-27)? In a sense He did a perfect work in the
> sacrifice of Christ to effect the end result, but the working out of that
> perfection has been a long process, with more setbacks than advances, I dare
> say. If God can only be attributed with "creating" things perfectly, in
> final form (e.g. species), in order to be properly looked on as a Creator,
> is even this basic theological assumption flawed as a general principle?
>
> Jon Tandy
> <http://www.arcom.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *John Walley
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:21 AM
> *To:* 'Jack'; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS
>
> Not to mention that if this copying error did make it to bumper stickers
> and further into the media and press, we would have a perfect analog of the
> evidence for common descent. Imagine trying to explain the design value of
> that.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Jack
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:06 AM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS
>
>
>
> I do not know if this is old news or not, but did anyone see Nova last
> night? It was a short documentary about the Dover trial.
>
>
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
>
>
>
> It is worth watching if and when they broadcast it again.
>
>
>
> One of the more illuminating and ironic segments regarded the different
> drafts of Pandas and People. The lawyers for the plaintiff were trying to
> prove that ID was just a repackaging of what had previously been called
> creationism. One of the pieces of evidence was text from comparing pre and
> post Edwards editions of Pandas and People. After the Edwards decision the
> editors wanted to take "creationism" out of the book. One of the witnesses
> for the plaintiff found a couple of example where creationism/creator was
> changed to ID/design, with otherise identical wording. But the most
> humorous and ironic example was an attempt to remove the word creationist
> with the words design proponents. But something went wrong in the editing,
> and the actual wording in the post-Edwards draft was cdesign
> proponentsists. So, unkowingly, they created a "transitional form", and
> clear evidence that the authors of Pandas equate ID with creationism.
>
>
>
> I had never heard that little detail before, and thought it was worth
> mentioning here.
>
>
>
> I think CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS would make a great bumper sticker.
>
>

-- 
-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.