Peter Ruest wrote:
> Howard, George,
> Both of you have contributed much to this discussion, and I'd like to
> thank you for this! There have been detours, misunderstandings, and
> frustrations, yet I, for one, have profited from the whole process, and
> I hope others have, too.
> This time, I don't intend to specifically react to all the points you
> brought up in your most recent posts (GM, 25 Nov 2001 16:50:09 -0500,
> and HVT, 26 Nov 2001 10:29:35 -0500), but rather try to summarize the
> present situation of our discussion, as I see it today. Please correct
> any errors this summary might contain. Of course, you or anyone else is
> welcome to comment or question this sketch - and I don't suggest this
> must be my last contribution to this thread.
Peter - I appreciate your work in sumamrizing views. I'm out of town
teaching for much of the week for awhile, which accounts for delay & brevity
in my reply. At this point I'll just note a couple of things:
1) Some care is needed in defining "miracle". I am uncomfortable
with the suggestion of "huge" numbers of miracles.
2) As I've noted before, how God acts - or doesn't act - at the
quantum level is something that needs to be dealt with even apart from the
possible role of such action in evolutionary processes.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 22:25:52 EST