RE: Faith, Evolution, and Tax Dollars?--ps

From: kbmill <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 15:59:54 EDT

>To reply more specifically to Keith:
>I don't see how the creation can be "gifted" (a term Howard has often used)
>with "the creaturely capacities to fully actualize God's creative will," I
>don't see how "the properties of the universe" can be "given" to nature (my
>term, which I've used for twenty years, even before I think Howard was
>writing about this) without the exercise of raw creative power. Matter has
>either one set of properties or another set of properties. If God can
>meaningfully be said to have "gifted" it with a particular set of
>"creaturely capacities," then it can only mean that it could have been
>"gifted" with other capacities that God did not give it, for reasons beyond
>our ken. This means that the "laws" of nature are not binding on God, they
>could have been otherwise; thus God "intervenes" to make a universe that
>would not exist without God actively giving it a particular kind of being.

Yes, I agree with the above, but I wouldn't use the word "intervene" in that
context. Nature is what it is only because of God's free choice. The "laws of
nature" are simply our scientific descriptions of how God has chosen to
accomplish the divine creative will. Nature has no power over God -- but I
believe that God chose to act in creative history through the capacities that
were freely given to God's "creatures." I also resonate with George's idea of
the cross-like action of God in creation.

Keith
Received on Mon Apr 5 16:00:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 05 2004 - 16:00:08 EDT