Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

My answer to Iain is that a "gap argument" terminology as introduced by
Coulson applies to gaps that can be filled in as our scientific
knowledge increases. An all or nothing argument is completely different.
Saying that God created the whole universe is a statement at a different
level from saying that God created the E. coli flagellum.
Don

IW wrote:
> -----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
>
> =

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 17:17:52 2007