From: Burgy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 12:47:39 EDT
Howard wrote: " ID, OEC, and YEC place a similar emphasis on the claim that there is a need for occasional episodes of form-conferring divine intervention in order to compensate for the universe's lack of formational capabilities. "
As much as you and I agree, Howard, the above is representative (I think) of where we part company.
Had you stopped the sentence after the word "intervention," and changed the words "need for" to "possibility of," you would have been just as correct (IMHO) and there would be no disagreement.
By adding "... in order to ... ." you place an unneeded motivational judgement into the argument. By saying "need for" you do the same, implying that the ID, OEC and YEC arguments insist that God could not have done things any other way.
As you know, I am "PC." (Not "politically correct," of course!<G>).
I would argue: " My position claims that there is a possibility of occasional episodes of form-conferring divine intervention. The "Van Till" model is also a possibility. Of the two, I think the first makes better sense. But I would not rule out the second, for it also makes sense."
One reason (not the only one) that I favor my position over yours is that I see in God an entity who likes to create, and so I see him "playing the universe" over time much as a skilled musician might play a violin. I think he had a lot of fun with the dinosaurs, but then decided to try something quite different. I have no idea, of course, why he was so fond of beetles. <G>
Burgy (John Burgeson)
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 12 2003 - 12:48:35 EDT