Re: Science and Theology

From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 07:57:32 EDT

Bill Hamilton wrote:

"Might it not be that God's primary interaction with the world is in his
dealings with mankind? If this is what the Scriptures are about, then
it makes sense that man is introduced in Genesis 1. I believe God is
involved with nature outside of man, but as the sustainer rather than
by way of intervention."

Can't say for sure your reading is not correct, but Peter Ruest and I appear to differ with most on this forum in believing that living physical beings are just too darn complicated to have emerged in all their messy glory entirely through the functioning of natural processes without some explicit intervention from God. Peter (if I understand correctly) believes the input was in the form of persuasion, whatever that means, while I'm drifting towards a belief in the need for some form of coercion--making stuff do what it ordinarily would not have been capable of doing.

I must confess I've been influenced by some of the presentations by ID people at a recent conference at Biola. They effectively made the point of high complexity in living cells, etc. My emotional response was, "Here's proof that God had to have done it!" But emotional proof unfortunately is not scientific proof.

None of us may be even remotely close to the truth, but we need models of origins for the same reasons that people have always needed myths. Besides, if you have a model, you may eventually come across data that will tell you you were wrong. No model, no progress.

Don

 
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: William Hamilton<mailto:whamilton51@comcast.net>
  To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  Cc: asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; Douglas Barber<mailto:dlbarber1954@verizon.net>
  Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 9:56 AM
  Subject: Re: Science and Theology

  On Saturday, May 1, 2004, at 06:33 AM, Don Winterstein wrote:

> For example--as some of us have recently been discussing, the
> apparent haphazardness of organic evolution and the great expanses of
> time taken may seem to require a God who does not intervene by
> coercing nature.

  Might it not be that God's primary interaction with the world is in his
  dealings with mankind? If this is what the Scriptures are about, then
  it makes sense that man is introduced in Genesis 1. I believe God is
  involved with nature outside of man, but as the sustainer rather than
  by way of intervention.
  Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
Received on Mon May 3 07:59:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 03 2004 - 07:59:48 EDT