>From: george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> "Fully gifted formation economy" or something similar should not
> seen as a statement of science but, insofar as it is relevant to science, as a
> theological statement to the effect that science should be successful in
> understanding the world if it operates without invoking God as an explanation.
> Bert's error here is not scientific but theological, the idea that
> ought to be able to find evidence of God by scientific study independenly of
> revelation. If this idea is accepted it has the potential to poison both
> and science. If people wonder why I sometimes speak so negatively, & perhaps
> intemperately, about natural theology, this is the reason.
Actually I have stated the RFE Principle in two ways -- one version is
limited to the concerns of science per se, and the other includes some
concerns of theology.
1. (limited to science) The formational economy of the universe is
sufficiently robust to account for the formation of every type of physical
structure (atom, planet star, galaxy) and every type of life form that has
ever appeared in the course of time.
2. (theologically supplemented version) As a manifestation of its Creator's
creativity and generosity, the formational economy of the Creation is
sufficiently robust to make possible -- without any need for occcasional
episodes of form-conferring, supernatural interventions -- the formation of
every type of physical structure (atom, planet star, galaxy) and every type
of life form that has ever appeared in the course of time.
It is form #1, limited to scientific concerns, that I had in mind in the
previous post to Bert.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 11 2001 - 07:46:22 EDT