Re: The state of suburban theology

From: <>
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 21:40:04 EDT

Bill Hamilton wrote:

> This has been something that has bothered me about the YEC community for
> some time. They seem to divide nature into "natural" processes that proceed
> without divine supervision, and the miraculous, where God reaches into nature
> and disrupts something. I prefer to think of nature -- the entirety of it -- as
> God's creation that responds to His oversight. It seems to me foolish to
> posit that God would create nature He didn't want to interact with. It also
> seems foolish to posit that in order to interact with nature God must disrupt
> something. Rather nature is a mechanism designed to respond to the creator's
> direction at all times. The response is totally governed by natural laws. But
> the inputs (which are designed for, and which probably take place at the quntum
> level, or may be hidden in chaos) come from God. It mystifies me that YEC's
> can't -- or won't -- understand this view.

Of course it is not just the YEC's who don't understand this.  The division
into 2 distinct and mutually exclusive categories of "things for which there
are natural explanations" and "things God is responsible for" is also a
characteristic of much of the Intelligent Design movement; for example it implicitly
pervades most of Phil Johnson's rhetoric.  For those of us who believe God is
sovereign over nature, such a view must be rejected.

Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
 attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
Received on Tue Jun 15 21:53:07 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 21:53:08 EDT