Re: God acting in creation #3

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 09:33:43 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Re: Evolution Statement" wrote:

    > In a message dated 11/30/01 9:33:17 AM, writes:
    > <<_Nor do I intend to forbid God to act as God chooses. But exceptions are
    > exception, & I think we should guard against using the resurrection of Jesus,
    > e.g., to provide a rationale for invoking numerous miraculous interventions -
    > especially when they are not things witnessed to by revelation but simply
    > scientifically puzzling phenomena. >>
    > George,
    > I do not accept the implication that my position requires miracles,
    > conceptual spinoffs from the resurrection of Jesus. You keep laying miracles
    > on my position. Staged creation is adding capabilities to creation, not
    > setting aside the laws of nature, or acting outside these laws for redemptive
    > purposes, as I see miracles.
    > Staged creations are exceptions from your frame of reference, not mine.
    > Theologically speaking, I see no problem with saying that staged creation was
    > planned from the beginning of creation.
    > But I think we are repeating ourselves.

    Bob -
            You are saying that at certain epochs natural processes receive
    capabilities that they didn't have before. If this happens at time t1 then there
    will be things happening for t > t1 that couldn't be explained in terms of laws
    of nature that obtained for t < t1. Suppose, e.g., that the world starts out
    with simple force-free Newtonian particles. They'll all move in straight lines,
    except for collisions, & there will be no bound (i.e., more complex) systems.
    Suppose then that at t = t1 God turns on an attractive inverse-square force so
    that bound systems become possible. Something new has been added to the world -
    something that allows the development of more complex systems & thus corresponds
    roughly with your idea of developmental stages. But the new phenomenon of
    gravitationally bound systems can't be explained in terms of the laws that
    obtained for t < t1.
            The laws of nature were not "set aside" at t = t1 but they were changed
    permanently at that time, & changed in a way that couldn't be predicted on the
    basis of the previous laws. (The new force could be more complicated than
    r^-2.) I won't insist on the term "miracle" for such an event
    but it seems to have some of the characteristics of traditional interventionist
    miracles. & I don't think that that's changed by saying that God planned this
    change at t = 0.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 09:32:57 EST