Re: [asa] Of Stars and Starfish (divine creative action, from Timaeus thread)

From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Thu Sep 25 2008 - 18:17:44 EDT

I agree. & what does it mean to say that we believe in "impersonal natural explanations?" If we use the traditional model of divine action in which God cooperates with creatures as "instruments" then the instruments may indeed be impersonal but the one who works with & through them isn't. The action of a mechanic tightening a bolt with a wrench isn't "impersonal" just because the wrench is!

Shalom,
George

---- SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> In his response to Dennis Venema, Timaeus appears to illustrate a phenomenon
> that has puzzled me about ID proponents. He can correct me if I have
> misinterpreted him -- but my observation does apply to many others.
>
> In explaining what he found unsatisfactory about "Darwinian mechanisms" as
> explanations for biological evolution, he objected to explanations that did
> not allow for "direct divine governance", that did not have room for God to
> "direct evolution personally".
>
> This idea seems to be at the heart of much ID thought. I heard one ID
> proponent (John Wiester) several years ago say approximately "impersonal natural
> explanations (like Darwinian evolution) that have no room for God are
> atheistic so Christians must oppose them".
>
> But let's examine this idea in the context of less controversial science.
> Consider the development (evolution, if you will) of stars. Except for YECs,
> most ID proponents seem to have no problem with the "natural" explanations
> science has developed for star formation, in terms of gravity, fusion, etc.
> But these explanations for star formation make no reference to God! If the ID
> people were consistent in their logic, they would be opposing the
> "methodological atheism" in astronomy. Yet *these* natural explanations, with no place
> for "direct divine governance", with no room for God to "direct [stellar]
> evolution personally" do not seem to be objectionable.
>
> My point is this. As Christians, we believe God is the creator of stars,
> and also of living things (whether acting directly or indirectly, to the extent
> that distinction is meaningful). Independent of the scientific evidence,
> why is it that *some* natural explanations in which God does not "direct
> personally" the process are not a problem, while others are considered unacceptable
> on philosophical/theological grounds?
>
> Why is different reasoning applied to God's creation of stars and starfish?
> If "personal direction" in addition to impersonal natural mechanisms (of
> course as Christians we know God is sovereign over apparently "impersonal"
> mechanisms) is not necessary in scientific explanation of stars, why should it be
> necessary for starfish?
>
> Allan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
>
>
>
> **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
> challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
> calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 25 18:18:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 25 2008 - 18:18:13 EDT