"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> >From: george murphy <email@example.com>
> > "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.
The distinction is useful. Note that I didn't say that RFEP was not
relevant for science. But even in form #1, it is not a statement of science itself
but a meta-scientific claim.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 11 2001 - 10:04:44 EDT