Re: God acting in creation #4+

From: robert6625 (robert6625@msn.com)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 20:38:30 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Response to: What does the creation lack?"

    Maybe Hyung S. Choi's article in PSCF,Vol 53, #2, June, 2001 would add some
    light to this discussion. Here is a quote from page 100. "The dimensional
    model can also explain well the problem of God's action in nature. In this
    new vision, we do not even need to look for openness in the 'physical' order
    to avoid the problem of suspension or violation of natural laws. Divine
    action can be understood simply as higher order laws working seamlessly with
    lower order laws."

    Bob Miller
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
    To: <rdehaan237@aol.com>; <gmurphy@raex.com>
    Cc: <tikeda@sprintmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 6:24 AM
    Subject: Re: God acting in creation #4+

    > >From: RDehaan237@aol.com
    >
    > > Sorry, Howard, but I do not feel obliged to respond to your example,
    since it
    > > has nothing to do with my view of how God acted. Your example is not
    in the
    > > spirit of my proposal, notwithstanding your saying so. I know you are
    using
    > > it just as an example to simplify and illustrate the point of your
    question.
    > > It's not that I don't get your question,
    >
    > I think there is still a major communication problem here. Perhaps we are
    > using the idea of "adding new formational CAPABILITIES" differently.
    >
    > > I just don't accept your conclusion,
    > > namely that "The character of the entire universe would be modified" if
    new
    > > formational capabilities to form a living cell were added to prebiotic
    > > creation. The course of the stars would not be changed, galaxies would
    > > continue to form, the physical constants would remain constant.
    >
    > Yes, Bob, things of that general sort would have to change. You cannot
    > change the formational capabilities of atoms and molecules -- what THEY
    are
    > able to do as an expression of THEIR very nature -- without changing
    > something like the physical constants, the rules of quantum mechanics, the
    > nature of the force laws, or the like. The formational capabilities of
    atoms
    > and molecule are very sensitively related to all of those factors; there
    is
    > no way to avoid that. Without some modification of such factors, there
    > cannot be any addition of new formational capabilities.
    >
    > > Since you raised the question, and apparently see something I don't
    see, let
    > > me ask you to explain further why and how you think physical or
    chemical
    > > laws throughout the universe would be modified as a result of cellular
    life
    > > forming on planet earth. Are you stating a brute fact? Are you
    > > extrapolating from you poisition to mine? How do you justify your
    statement?
    >
    > If cellular life forms on planet earth appear AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ATOMS
    AND
    > MOLECULES HAVING BEEN MODIFIED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO GIVE THEM CAPABILITIES
    > FOR DOING THINGS THAT THEY WERE FORMERLY INCAPABLE OF DOING, then the
    > character of everything in the universe has been modified. (Unless, of
    > course, you propose that atoms and molecules out there are qualitatively
    > different from atoms and molecules here. THAT difference, however, would
    be
    > very evident spectroscopically.)
    >
    > > What I see as a better example of my posiion is buildinng a house. The
    > > founndation is laid (prebiotic universe). Now it is ready for the next
    stage
    > > -- building the frame and the rest of the house (cellular life, complex
    life,
    > > etc.). When building the superstructure on the fondation, the character
    of
    > > the entire foundation would be not need to be modified. It has its own
    > > inegrity, and does what it was designed and built to do-- hold up the
    rest of
    > > the house.
    >
    > Your example brings in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT dynamic. The superstructure
    of
    > the house (which you compare to cellular life, complex life, etc.) is NOT
    > assembled by the raw materials using new formational capabilities, but is
    > built by an external agent (the carpentry crew). The superstructure is not
    > the outcome of adding new formational capabilities to the raw materials,
    but
    > is the product of "coercive intervention" by an overpowering external
    agent.
    >
    > If THAT is the model you want to defend, fine. But then do not confuse
    > things by saying that the new cellular structures arise out of the use of
    > new formational capabilities that have been added to atoms and molecules.
    >
    > What you are now talking about is NOT the adding of NEW FORMATIONAL
    > CAPABILITIES but the imposing of NEW STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATIONS that have
    > capabilities that were always there potentially, but could not be
    expressed
    > until there were structures of the right sort brought into the picture by
    > the intervention of an external agent. Your model for staged development
    > has nothing to do with the adding of new formational capabilities, but is
    a
    > fully interventionist model. What happens between your "stages" is not the
    > addition of new atomic or molecular capabilities (which is what I thought
    > we were talking about), but the imposing of new configurations by a divine
    > Artificer.
    >
    > Howard Van Till
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 13 2001 - 20:39:22 EST