Re: T/D #1 (Functional Integrity)
Loren Haarsma (email@example.com)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:15:21 -0400 (EDT)
> In contrast with some suggestions (by Terry, Allan, George,...), I think
> there may be a place for MIRM in a theistic worldview, if God sometimes
> (for some phenomena in some situations) *allows* things to run in a
> hands-off deistic way. For example, a falling leaf, or the motion of
> hydrogen in a star in a distant galaxy. I won't say that some motion *is*
> MIRM, but I think it *could be* MIRM with a well-designed universe.
> is different than a "functional integrity" that makes claims (way beyond
> its theological or scientific bases of support, I think) that there *was
> not* or *could not be* any "theistic action" in nature.
I've never heard the phrase "functional integrity" used that way
before. "Functional integrity," as I've heard it used, makes the claim
that creation was designed so that there was no *need* for God to
miraculously assist creation to achieve the sort of rich complexity we
see today. (I think it would be fair to also substitute the words
"miraculously assist" in the previous sentence with "subtly guide many
different times such that the cumulative effect becomes statistically
obvious in hindsight.) Within FI, there remains a range of options for
how and how much God guided physical and biological history to a
*particular* complex outcome. You're limiting the term FI for one
particular end of that range, but I think the term was intended to cover
the entire range.