From: Howard J. Van Till (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 08:28:26 EDT
>From: "Rich Blinne" <email@example.com>
> I think we need to add a category of presumptive naturalism to the
> possibilities in Howard's critique of ID. Recognizing the facts that
> God is a God of order and that supernatural activity is extremely rare,
> we presume that events have a natural explanation. The only time we
> don't is when there is overwhelming and universally obvious evidence to
> the contrary. It would help if God helped us out by saying so. Thus, I
> further presume against supernatural consideration unless it coincides
> with Divine revelation. Even though there is a naturalistic explanation
> to an event, Divine design is not disproven. Rather, the natural order
> itself which science depends on is where we recover our teleology.
Yes, this is a position that can, I believe, be defended with integrity. It
is one of the options that is consistent with what I have called the "Robust
Formational Economy Principle (RFEP)" Supernatural, form-conferring
interventions are unnecessary for the actualization of new creaturely forms,
but not ruled out in principle. This is, in effect, the position I have
called the "Fully-Gifted Creation" perspective.
Naturalistic theism, on the other hand, posits that supernatural
interventions are not only unnecessary, but are also ruled out by the
character of God, the world, and the God-world relationship. This is the
position defended by David Ray Griffin and other process theologians.
These two positions agree regarding the RFEP, but posit different
ontological visions re the characters of God and world. By positing that
form-conferring supernatural interventions are necessary for the
actualization of some biotic structures, ID rejects both of the above
positions with comparable vigor.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 12:17:48 EDT