> Massie wrote:
> > Allan Harvey wrote:
> > > In response to suggestions by Howard van Till and myself that the
> > > "Intelligent Design" movement better define its terms, Massie wrote:
> > >
> > > >Neither Christians nor materialists have enough information to rule out
> > > >that God simply set the initial conditions just right and perhaps some
> > > >laws of nature that we do not understand so that life progessed in the
> > > >way it did.
> > > >
> > > >Thesis 1: God intervened at certain steps to change things.
> > > >
> > > >Thesis 2: God set it up with hidden genes so that eventually a dinosaur
> > > >would lay and egg and out would come a chicken.
> > > >
> > > >How could we tell the difference?
> > > >
> > > >We we do know is that overall it is more difficult to believe that all
> > > >of this happened without some external source of information and fine
> > > >tuning .
> > > >
> > > >Theism and design do not depend on how God implemented.
> > > >
> > > >However, for me, it is easier to believe in progressive intevention but
> > > >I would never push Thesis 1 or Thesis 2 as a certain thing because I
> > > >don't have any firm basis.
> > >
> > > And this gets directly to my point. In contrast to Massie's
> > > openmindedness with regard to how God may have chosen to carry out his
> > > creation, *much* of the "Intelligent Design" movement seems to reject
> > > "natural" ways of God's implementing his design, insisting (or at least
> > > giving the impression) that only Thesis 1 above is compatible with
> > > theism. This is pretty horrid from the standpoint of Christian theology
> > > (not to mention apologetically unwise), and if the Intelligent Design
> > > movement is to have a healthy impact on the body of Christ it must be
> > > steered away from such errors. Avoiding that error (and perhaps more
> > > importantly avoiding lay people being led into that error based on how
> > > they interpret the message) will require clearly thought out distinctions
> > > and definitions that the ID movement does not seem to be making currently.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------> > | Dr. Allan H. Harvey | email@example.com |
> > > | Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
> > > | National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
> > > | 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > I believe that the progressive creation view best fits the data including
> > Genesis but, again, it is difficult to discern with anywhere near the level of
> > certainty that many express.
> > Bert
> Has it ever occurred to anyone that:
> 1) Design could be (pictured) as a glass half full of water
> 2) Evolution could be (pictured) as a glass half empty of water
> 3) Theistic Evolution would be the entire picture????
> Although it is beyond the realm of science to answer the God question; it
> is certainly possible to answer it with philosophy and theology. It maybe
> possible to extend science up the pyramid of human knowledge someday, but
> to do so now would certainly be premature.
> William A. Wetzel
> icq-uin# 13983514
Theistic evolution is a confused term to me. It is frequently confused with evolutionism. God did not give much specifics in Genesis as to the progression
of life forms. It would have been a creative and God controlled act for:
Wind the universe up and these events occur sequentually because God created it that way and the sequentual statements in Genesis refer to these transitions
that were "pre-created and programmed."
Intervene at various places and cause the animals to beget big changes.
Remove and then insert different animals at different times.
Fine, we have a spectrum of views and I am certain that this mesh only hints at the variety of programs we would suggest.
That is not the issue. The issue is how can be perform a differential diagnoses.
The natural record leaves is a trace that various forms existed at different times. In my view, those of the Gould camp with thier "punctuated equilibrium"
have been the most honest in a descriptive since. We are left however without a good mechanism for the changes at the junctures. What if we were to
acknowledge that we don't have a good physical record and do not know how God did it.
A great writer of the history of scientific revolutions has pointed out that sciencetists hate a vacuum and would almost push a bad theory just to have one
where there is not much basis. I want to push the view that we cannot differentiate clearly even though much can be promoted from the few Hebrew words.