Re: Does Creator Imply Designer? was Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 10:30:52 EDT

Boy, I think there are really major problems with this. 1st, I would question, & at the least strongly nuance, the claim that it is "the Creator of all, which is primarily the main description of the Biblical God." The fullest & deepest revelation of God is the cross-resurrection event, & we are to understand God's creative activity in light of that, not the other way around.

& then the suggestion (if I read you correctly) that the development of life could just appear to be due to evolution without it really being so would mean that creatures & natural processes don't really do anything. I.e., the things in the world would just be inert lumps of stuff that God moves around in arbitrary (though perhaps seemingly rational) ways. In the same way one could say that planetary orbits aren't really a matter of bodies moving under the infoluence of an inverse square force oin accord with F = ma, but God just moves them on (approximately) elliptical orbits with the right speed so that it looks that way. That's a traditional notion - it's what Barbour calls the "classic" theology of divine action - but it seems to me completely inadequate both on theological & scientific grounds. Scripture gives us a much more dynamic picture of creation & science has come a long way from the old Stoff und Kraft picture of the world of Newtonian physics' heyday.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: Does Creator Imply Designer? was Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

> God does not exist in spacetime so there is no way we can understand or fathom His actions except by analogies that are embedded in spacetime. Surely, the Creator of all, which is primarily the main description of the Biblical God, can be running the whole show that we experience in time and ascribe it to evolution without it being so. Let us not be haughty and claim to know it all. Let us leave room for the mystery that is an integral part of our existence.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 7/30/2008 7:58 PM
> To: Don Nield
> Cc: Alexanian, Moorad; ASA
> Subject: Does Creator Imply Designer? was Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All
>
>
>
> Let me split the thread for you because it is an important question.
> As to your and Moorad's point I -- along with most people here -- tend
> to agree. But for me it is only up to a point. Creator does seem to
> imply designer but I should be quick to point out it is not a
> necessary one. We are all assuming here that human design is
> analogical to Divine Creation and to the degree that God is
> transcendent that analogy may break down at best. N.B. the history of
> trinitarian analogies and how they get us into trouble. At worst it's
> idolatry. The Second Commandment prohibition is predicated on God's
> transcendence and our tendency to make Him in our image by
> representing Him as analogous with the material Universe. Since we are
> familiar with industrial design we assume -- maybe right, maybe wrong
> -- that God's Creation is like manufacturing. The Universe as a
> manufactured machine strikes me as waaaaay too simplified and thus I
> tend to side more with the maybe wrong side of the equation.
>
> Rich
>
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Don Nield wrote:
>
>> Rich's question is pertinent. My comment is not relevant to the
>> title of the thread, but only to Moorad's last statement. My
>> apologies for the thread splitting.
>> Don
>>
>> Rich Blinne wrote:
>>> I'm lost here. What does this have to do with whether the fine
>>> tuning argument is valid or not?
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Don Nield wrote:
>>>
>>>> I disagree with Moorad on a number of things but on this one I
>>>> agree with him. A Creator must be an Intelligent Designer. A
>>>> designer (with a small d) need not be a Creator.
>>>> I find it interesting that Ken Miller in his latest book argues
>>>> that Behe's version of a designer is in effect a creator.
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>>>>> If I am not wrong, a designer need not be a Creator, but
>>>>> certainly a Creator is a Designer and if you can create then you
>>>>> must be intelligent. Therefore, a Creator must be an Intelligent
>>>>> Designer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Moorad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 31 10:31:06 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 10:31:06 EDT