george murphy wrote:
> 4.) God is continually active in the world but limits his
>action to what can be
> accomplished through lawful (including statistical laws) natural
> the natural world viewed by itself, without any theological
>presuppositions, can be
> understood without reference to God.
> 4 is the answer suggested by a Christian (as distinguished
>from a merely
> theistic) view of divine action.
Nice outlook, George. I think that I have seen you express this before.
I have 2 questions:
1.) Why is this "Christian" as opposed to "theistic"?
2.) This then says that the process is not random, which is a
_contradiction_ of the theory of evolution as stated.
I again quote what Morris has published:
"The essence of evolution, of course, is randomness. The evolutionary
process supposedly began with random particles and has continued by
random aggregations of matter and then random mutations of
If this is not the correct _scientific_ understanding of evolution, then
where is it wrong? and if it is wrong, then should it not be corrected
_scientifically_ (not theologically).
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 21 2002 - 14:34:43 EDT