From: Howard J. Van Till (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 16:10:21 EDT
> In two recent posts, Howard wrote:
>> It's really quite simple. The RFEP is purposely
>> stated in a way that, a) limits its application to
>> matters of the formational history of the universe,
>> and b) avoids a categorical denial of supernatural
>> divine actions.
>> The RFEP does, however, posit that form-imposing
>> (coercive) divine intervention is unnecessary as a
>> means of bringing about the actualization of novel
>> creaturely forms.
> The second statement has one slight ambiguity. It states that divine
> intervention is *unnecessary*, but it doesn't say that it is *impossible*.
> But in either case, we seem to have a logical inconsistency between God's
> Agency and the RFEP.
> 1) If "form-imposing (coercive) divine intervention" is allowed as a
> *possible* explanation for the appearance of any "novel creaturely form"
> then the RFEP is eviscerated of all significance, because then *all* "novel
> creaturely forms" could be a result of divine intervention.
Within the limits of the RFEP as stated, form-imposing interventions as the
means of actualizing novel creaturely forms could be posited, I suppose, but
I would find them awkward at best. All argumentation by proponents of YEC,
OEC, ID, or any other form of episodic creationism that appeals to the claim
that such an intervention is necessitated by the Creation's lack of the
requisite resources or formational capabilities, would be disqualified by
the Creation's conformity to the RFEP. If such form-conferring intervention
is unnecessary, how would a person justify the assertion that it nonetheless
> It appears to me that the RFEP is logically inconsistent with the doctrine
> of a God who is free to act and create as He will.
Not at all. But it does imply something about what God, consistent with
God's own being, would will to do in relation to the World.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 16:13:25 EDT