> "As far as I know, with my limited knowledge of astrophysics,
>there are no serious challenges to theories proposing that
>natural processes produced galaxies, stars, and planets." Dick Fischer
>What has always bugged me about Hugh Ross is that in his own
>discipline of astrophysics he calls for no supernatural
>interference. Instead he foists off his theory of progressive
>creation by miraculous intervention on to the science of
>anthropology where he has no credentials.
Or "the science of biology," many biologists will say.
But why should we assume an "all or nothing" situation, where miraculous
theistic action (miraTA) is either used in ALL areas of nature, or in NONE?
For example, maybe there is a difference between the "design
requirements" for astronomical-E and chemical-E, and God decided to design
our universe with natural properties that would allow the self-assembly of
stars and planets, but not of a one-celled living organism. In this case
the selectivity of Hugh (by criticizing the sufficiency of natural chem-E
but accepting the sufficiency of natural astro-E) would be correct. (and it
might also be scientifically justifiable based on logical analysis of
But is it philosophically justifiable? It seems to me that the
sufficiency of astro-E and chem-E can be examined independently, with
minimal input from a desire for "philosophical consistency" that doesn't
seem to be based on any solid Biblical or theological principle. / Isn't
it OK for a theistic evolutionist (in bio-E) to be a "miraTA creationist"
In Biblical history, God used miraTA in some situations but not others,
so "consistency in action" doesn't seem to be an issue here. Maybe
consistency (either miraTA in all areas, or in none) should also not be an
issue in the pre-human "formative" history of nature.
Another possibility: Maybe Dick is asking, "If Hugh understood these
other areas (chem-E, bio-E, anthropology,...) as well as he understands his
own field of astro-E, would he conclude that natural evolution is
sufficient in all areas?" If this is the question, then it is about "the
quality of scientific analysis and evaluation" rather than the
philosophical "desire for consistency" discussed above, and I agree with
Dick that it is a relevant question to ask.