Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:02:25 +0900 PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 3, 2007 11:25 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>wrote:

I am with Bernie I think. Before I joined this list several years
ago I did not even know what the gap theory was or what half the
acronyms here meant. I have no issue with accepting evolution and
the evolutionary process. However....

>Of course, we can always invoke the guiding hand of God but to
>replace
>our ignorance with an appeal to God runs the risk of a gap
>argument.

Why is the assumption that invoking God's guiding hand is utilized
to explain something we are ignorant on? I do not argue original
sin to explain humanities depravity because outside religion I can
find no decent explanation for that depravity.

If one wants to argue that suggesting God was involved and remains
involved in his creation at all times is a "Gap argument" then why
cannot the same accusation be leveled at every believer on this
list? Why are we believers at all - surely thats just a human
weakness to assign to a deity that which we cannot
define/explain/handle?

If we can be "unscientific" enough to believe in a deity which
cannot be proven through the scientific method then what difference
is that between those who see God intimately involved with his
creation at all times.

I understand that one does not want to simply assume "God did it"
when we run into a moment of ignorance on a topic in science. I
agree that when we get stuck on some point of evolution that we
cannot just turn around and say, "Well at this point God did x and
now we move on to Y which we can scientifically explain".

But I do not see that as the same thing as arguing that God is or
could be intimately involved in his creation prodding and poking
until today. Why should he not? In fact, based on scripture I would
argue that if God is not intimately involved then there is no God
at all. The bible shows a God who cares and is present at all time -
 his work is never finished. And intimate involvement does not
proscribe the idea that God may have been fiddling in his
evolutionary driven creation since the beginning until now. Can we
prove that? No - no more than I can prove God''s existence or
Christ's resurrection.

What are miracles if not direct interventions in the established
system of things?

>Is it necessary that God guided evolution?

Actually, yes - in the sense I am thinking. If not then I would
argue we are theists not Christians. I think the bible is clear
that God did not just create and then stand back to watch us sink
or swim. If God is active in the lives of Christians today -
guiding them and acting on their lives I fail to see how he would
bizarrely be absent from his other forms of creation. What, God is
only half involved? Only works part time?

>Personally, I
>see nothing wrong with accepting that God set it all in motion a
>long
>time ago. What does it mean for God to 'guide evolution'?

The same thing it means when we say God created the heavens and the
earth. The same thing we mean when we say Christ rose from the
dead. The same thing we mean when we say God works in our lives.

IW

=====================================
iaincw@hushmail.com (PGP Key id: 0x3BCCA6CE)
iain@secure.holuwon.com (PGP key id: 0x722EE765)
iw@pos-aman.com (PGP key id: 0x043A5687)

This email is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately and delete
this message from your system without first printing or copying it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 2.5

wpwEAQECAAYFAkdXHxAACgkQCQeomTvMps7NkQP/dzqsDLgRM04KyvZ6SX5060dzKa0S
aXKNHyr1bEsYRYEFh6aVcS3l/LvQlyKYK7lp4sN6dS9fLm5IeqS8TI0xxk4Thlv4M0j7
hFw2EfRb6coVWwKyEJ/j0PbzICjPUpcbaOHJ2FFkhEWJE9Hu0qN+NqcZYlyYaeFTVK3a
jD54Aqg=
=5A1U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 5 16:59:53 2007