tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post716769631888294393..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Denisovans and Genesis 1-2Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31588668972502859862014-07-24T10:28:02.377+12:002014-07-24T10:28:02.377+12:00After all these sundry rounds of debate, I'd w...After all these sundry rounds of debate, I'd wish to add a final offering - which is not mine but is again another book! The blurb on the back states:<br /><br />Are creation and evolution mutually exclusive terms? Or is there instead a deep relationship between science, metaphysics, and theology that can help shed light into mankind’s quest for the ultimate truth? <i>No God, No Science?: Theology, Cosmology, Biology</i> (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013) presents a comprehensive work of philosophical theology whose overarching aim is to retrieve the Christian doctrine of creation <i>ex nihilo</i> from the distortions imposed upon it by positivist science and the Darwinian tradition of evolutionary biology.<br /><br />Noted scholar Michael Hanby cogently argues that the Christian doctrine of creation is actually <i>essential</i> to the intelligibility of the world and that the universe itself is a fundamentally metaphysical and theological concept. Metaphysics and theology, he reasons, are not options in the realm of science, and the intractable problems of Darwinian biology are actually the result of its faulty metaphysical and theological foundations. Putting forth a new understanding of the relationship between theology and science and an original and thought-provoking critical reassessment of Darwinian biology, <i>No God, No Science?</i> changes the terms of the debate between Darwinism and theology and offers startling new insights into the potential for science and religion to coexist and flourish in the modern world.<br /><br />Enjoy!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82907815457902613212014-07-10T16:21:50.252+12:002014-07-10T16:21:50.252+12:00Hi Ron
I agree with your comments regarding scien...Hi Ron<br /><br />I agree with your comments regarding science in your last post and appreciate those christian's and others who have and do work in the field of science.<br /><br />The statement you refer to of mine specifically relates to the current understanding of evolution as being in part contradictory to scripture, it does not question the validity of all science or scientists.<br /><br />Cheers CathyJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81004647643385307362014-07-10T11:22:30.653+12:002014-07-10T11:22:30.653+12:00"Yes I do think the scientific understanding ..."Yes I do think the scientific understanding of evolution as it stands is in part contradictory of scripture because it does not acknowledge a Creator had a role in creation. - Jean -<br /><br />By its very nature, Jean, science involves objectivity. It is not necessarily spiritual or religious. <br /><br />However, there have been many scientists who are spiritual. I think of someone close to my wife's family, Ernest Rutherford, who was both a scientist of some international repute, and also a practising Anglican. In his time at Cambridge University he did not pretend that his discoveries were outside of the realm of God as Creator. However, he did help the cause of modern scientific exploration to discover theories that were never revealed in the scriptures. Only God is omniscient we cannot claim that privilege.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77435880266924026682014-07-10T06:20:15.864+12:002014-07-10T06:20:15.864+12:00Hi Ron
Yes I do think the scientific understandin...Hi Ron<br /><br />Yes I do think the scientific understanding of evolution as it stands is in part contradictory of scripture because it does not acknowledge a Creator had a role in creation.<br /><br />"How far do you go on excusing a totally new understanding of the cosmos on the basis of it being interpretation?"<br /><br />I don't totally 'get' this question Ron. I see science as being investigative of the creative world, and science is the method people commonly use to understand the cosmos. I just think science is not always able to adequately explain everything or is infallible.<br /><br />Conclusions made by scientists in the past, due to limited knowledge or limited ability at the time due to equipment or methods to accurately investigate a concept, are found to be incorrect and replaced by new discoveries in science all the time.<br /><br />Blessings JeanJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85885152700401151682014-07-09T22:09:21.558+12:002014-07-09T22:09:21.558+12:00There is certainly no need to make a choice betwee...There is certainly no need to make a choice between the Scriptures and science.<br />God did give us both free will and reason;but both were involved in the 'fall'.That is why we must pray for His wisdom and understanding.<br />Scriptures give us the 'primary cause' of events or objects(the<br />first and final cause);while Empirical Science provides the <br />'efficient cause'.Scriptures tell us why something exists,while science tells how it works.<br />If science had only realised in <br />1860,that Darwin's theory was not scientific and had accepted Mendel's work;we may not be having<br />this debate.<br />Mendel's work was completely over<br />shaddowed by Darwinism and it was not until 1900 that his writings were rediscovered which lead to him being considered the father of<br />modern genetics.<br />We need to be aware that it is science which we are dealing with and not 'scientism-science as a religion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03140119419720500905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79133420805833463952014-07-09T21:22:23.996+12:002014-07-09T21:22:23.996+12:00Dear Jean. Would you think that the scientific und...Dear Jean. Would you think that the scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is a simple mistake; or do you think that it is a radical contradiction of the biblical version? How far do you go to excuse a totally new understanding of the cosmos, on the basis of it being 'interpretation'?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53296603411495817682014-07-09T16:41:29.352+12:002014-07-09T16:41:29.352+12:00For sure Ron, reason is one of our attributes we u...For sure Ron, reason is one of our attributes we use to interpret scripture. However, interpreting is different from replacing, when new information contradicts scripture we must employ all our facilities very carefully with wisdom.<br /><br />Blessings Jean Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21817871271109770212014-07-09T09:27:04.398+12:002014-07-09T09:27:04.398+12:00"So, indeed as you proclaim we may need not m..."So, indeed as you proclaim we may need not make a choice between our science and our faith, as we use our Creative minds in search of new possibilities.... " - Jean -<br /><br />And this involves taking note of new information that comes to hand that might well inform our understanding of the Scriptures! We are not robots. God has given us reason - as well as the Scriptures!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80089110028568241942014-07-09T06:12:20.324+12:002014-07-09T06:12:20.324+12:00Hi Michael
I have to confess I put a red herring ...Hi Michael<br /><br />I have to confess I put a red herring in there. There are no weeds which have adapted to being round-up resistant. Rather there are food plants (altered by scientists) which are round-up resistant. Think twice before you use your next bottle of Canola oil. And yes Canola has since become uncontrollable in terms of its spread and infiltration of other crops. Not that Monsanto won't prosecute you if it is found in your field.<br /><br />Food authorities do not see round-up resistant Canola and regular Canola as being a different species/kind. Maybe, for convenience sake, there are different rules regarding laboratory v's natural adaptation?<br /><br />Back to evolution....<br /><br />Oh bother yes I did mean bacteria re superbugs, I didn't know whether superbugs were virus's or bacteria related so I took a random chance and got it wrong.<br /><br />Should we be concerned, if superbugs have existed for such a long time (e.g. before penicillin) then surely there are humans out their who have, through natural selection or adaptation, become immune to them so we could seek out such people and use this knowledge to develop an antidote?<br /><br />Alternatively we could continue investigating the world God gave us to find alternatives to antibiotics. Such as Manuka Honey, which interestingly is at present being used successfully to battle the flesh eating Superbug, thanks to Comvita. Go kiwi's!<br /><br />I think it is thanks to scientists/medical researchers and the morality of humanity, that survival of the fittest is being turned on its head. My nephew, given three days to live and now 11, has to all intense in purposes the 'chance' of a normal lifespan. Of course there was also a lot of prayer and his name means, unbeknown to his yet to be christian parents, Jesus saves.<br /><br />So, indeed as you proclaim we may need not make a choice between our science and our faith, as we use our Creative minds in search of new possibilities....<br /><br />Blessings Jean <br /><br />Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89874110030798462172014-07-09T05:26:31.717+12:002014-07-09T05:26:31.717+12:00Hi Peter
Yes wouldn't evolving into a humanit...Hi Peter<br /><br />Yes wouldn't evolving into a humanity without sin be nice!<br /><br />I wonder how the christian theological concept of sin and consequently living in a fallen world of illness and disease - all of creation waits for the redemption of man - fits in with evolution.... but enough deliberations : ).<br /><br />Blessings Jean Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23572649902184647202014-07-08T10:30:44.598+12:002014-07-08T10:30:44.598+12:00Hi Peter,
Michael wrote:[If you are an organism co...Hi Peter,<br />Michael wrote:[If you are an organism comfortably enconced in an enviroment that suits you and which you can exploit...then there is no external necessity requireing requiring you to evolve].<br />Can one assume then, that the 1% who control 80% of the worlds wealth can stop evolving.They are <br />presumably in an enviroment that suits them and which they can exploit.<br />There always seems to a moral problem which one can not transcend:that is,how does one build an equitable society on the basis of survival of the fittest.<br />Then the paradox arises that:<br />(a)Whether one is in the 1% or the 99%, is simply a matter of ramdom chance.<br />(b)If it were possible to even think of suich a society;there is<br />nothing one could do about it,because Darwin denied man's free will.<br />As this thread progesses,the question arises as to whether<br />adaption is being mistaken for evolution.<br />Change is the process of life.If it was not so,then repentance could not take place.One is of course,growing or maturing in their relationship to Christ;not<br />evolving.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03140119419720500905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43144095321858112172014-07-08T06:42:10.565+12:002014-07-08T06:42:10.565+12:00I guess, Jean, that another aspect could be this: ...I guess, Jean, that another aspect could be this: no one is denying that evolution works as a matter of adapting to environments and the stronger adapters surviving better, least with respect to homo sapiens (we are taller, stronger, more resistant to bugs than our ancestors etc); the question re Genesis 1-3 would be whether we are evolving into a humanity-without-sin. Reading this morning's Press, I see no evidence for the latter! Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83866018970589738332014-07-08T06:18:54.269+12:002014-07-08T06:18:54.269+12:00Hi Peter
"Redemption and reconciliation are ...Hi Peter<br /><br />"Redemption and reconciliation are healing and restorative steps back to God's ideal (the biblical account of human life starts in a garden and ends in paradise), not developmental steps towards God's ideal."<br /><br />I don't think the position Grammaticus takes is at odds with this statement. Rather, belief in evolution and consequently humans evolving into an ideal (natural selection) rather than them being re-created back closer toward His image, is another example of that faultline.<br /><br />Or else the 'both' concept as you propose it, would by necessity assume at one point in history evolution's reached it's end point in respect to human development (before the fall).<br /><br />Blessings JeanJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18886994494898625892014-07-08T01:11:58.532+12:002014-07-08T01:11:58.532+12:00Hi Jean,
“An 'exploitable environment' se...Hi Jean,<br /><br />“An 'exploitable environment' seems like a 'convenient justification' for evolution to stop in certain situations.”<br /><br />A better term to use rather than “stop” would be “pause”. If you are an organism comfortably ensconced in an environment that suits you and which you can exploit, so that you feed well and breed sufficiently and do all those things that best become an organism, then there really is no “external necessity” requiring you to evolve. Some organisms don’t seem to have had the necessity to change and thus haven’t. They haven’t “stopped” evolving, but rather they are “marking time”.<br /><br />Changes may occur, which may not confer any particular advantages, in an organism and thus there will be no incentive for the organism to selectively breed this new trait. The new adaptation may survive for a few generations, but may then disappear for want of usefulness and the organism will remain much as it was. Note that in this case evolution has not stopped happening to the organism, but rather the new adaptation that occurred was of no significant benefit to the group, and was not replicated to any significant degree. Thus the organism did not evolve with this particular change through natural selection.<br /><br />Let us take, for example, a certain plant, which is commonly dismissed as a “weed” and is therefore sprayed with Round-Up in order to kill it. If the “weed” is susceptible to Round-Up it will die. Hopefully it will die before it has a chance to set seed and produce the next generation of “weeds”. However, let us assume that some of these plants have a variation that makes them less susceptible to Round-Up than their cousins, and thus they don’t die and do have a chance to set seed. The new generation of “weeds” will carry this useful adaptation i.e. the ability not to succumb to Round-Up, and since they are more successful at surviving, they will gradually start to replace their less able cousins. After a few generations, though the process of natural selection, we will have a “weed” that no longer responds to Round-Up, which could be a disaster for us, but is undoubtedly a success for the “weed”, since it will continue to survive.<br /><br />Whether this new Round-Up resistant version of the “weed” is a new species of “weed” I am not sufficiently competent to rule on. It is however a variation of the “weed” that has particularly useful adaptation for its current environment. A variation that allows it to produce a new generation and not get killed before it does so, somewhat like some famous Finches.<br /><br />The evolution of an organism will occur, through the process of natural selection, if a new, or particular trait, provides added benefit in an environment, over a currently held set of traits. Conversely, if there is no advantage to be gained, i.e. you ultimately get to breed more, then it is unlikely that this trait will be passed on through the process of natural selection.<br /><br />As I was referring to “Super Bugs”, then I presume you meant to refer to bacteria rather than viruses. I will admit that I didn’t know that Penicillin-resistant forms of bacteria were found to have existed before the discovery of Penicillin, which is a rather chilling thought. A quick perusal of the Wiki articles on “Antibiotic Resistance” and “Bacteria” is definitely an unsettling read. The fact that, under optimum conditions, the generation-time of bacteria can be as little as 9.8 minutes, shows how quickly new antibiotic resistant versions of a bacteria can develop.<br /><br />As to your final point, I suppose it can be expressed as a theological belief that evolution no longer occurs for mankind, but still occurs for every other organism. It is a statement that really can only be made by faith alone, since mankind’s exceptionalism, in terms of ceased evolution, would be hard to justify scientifically.<br /><br />Perhaps, it is better that we are not required to make a choice in this particular case, between our faith and science, since the answer may well be, for some, “But it Evolves!”<br /><br />Michael Primrose, ChristchurchMichael Primrosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78492860834379606252014-07-07T22:26:09.534+12:002014-07-07T22:26:09.534+12:00"Redemption and reconciliation are healing an..."Redemption and reconciliation are healing and restorative steps back to God's ideal (the biblical account of human life starts in a garden and ends in paradise), not developmental steps towards God's ideal."<br /> - Dr. Peter Carrell -<br /><br />I think you have neatly summed up what I reckon to be the answer to these condunrums (should it be 'conundra?) Peter.<br /><br />This is one of my reasons for our prayers for the Departed. Our part in the process of their perfecting by God - before the Eschaton - when, Paul says, Christ will come again, to take with him those who belong to him.<br /><br />(Jesus said: "I will lose nothing of all that the Father has given to me, and I will raise them up on the Last Day") Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71905173591732100152014-07-07T22:02:07.298+12:002014-07-07T22:02:07.298+12:00Hi Glen,
Your question is precisely the faultline ...Hi Glen,<br />Your question is precisely the faultline between evolutionary biology and theology. Was the world good and now in decline or was the world so-so and getter better?!<br /><br />Could it have been both? Is evolutionary biology telling one story (focused on the progress of organisms) and theology-a-la-Genesis 1-2&3 telling another (focused on the progress of organisation=society). In the latter story, sin is not a necessary step towards human growth and improvement, but a decline from how God has made us. Sin is a wrecker of human society, not a stage we are going through towards perfection.<br /><br />Redemption and reconciliation are healing and restorative steps back to God's ideal (the biblical account of human life starts in a garden and ends in paradise), not developmental steps towards God's ideal. Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72402127189544196862014-07-07T20:47:07.477+12:002014-07-07T20:47:07.477+12:00"[So God created man in his own image,in the ..."[So God created man in his own image,in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them].Gen 1:27.<br />There seems to be a philosophical flaw in the argument, that after being created in the image and likeness of God, we are evolving to some advanced form of man".<br /><br />Or rather some post-man. Perhaps we should call him 'Pat'? :)<br /><br />Pace Bryden, I think C. S. Lewis's understanding of 'Adam' (as a collective species endowed with reason) is a little dofferent from attempts to unite Christian theology with evolution. I think the idea referenced above has more in common with Teilhard de Chardin.<br /><br />GrammaticusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44021012736919092032014-07-07T20:39:52.250+12:002014-07-07T20:39:52.250+12:00Hi Michael
An 'exploitatable environment'...Hi Michael<br /><br />An 'exploitatable environment' seems like a 'convenient justification' for evolution to stop in certain situations.<br /><br />Superbugs - creatures? Are viruses respectively one species regardless of their type? <br /><br />Is a round-up resistant plant, a different species from a non-roundup resistant plant?<br /><br />I am with Grammaticus theologically. If God places man (current) in the created position of being higher than the Angels, made in his image. To contend we can exceed that is but to desire to be God, and we all know what that desire led to.<br /><br />Blessings JeanJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59193265049324353062014-07-07T19:37:09.824+12:002014-07-07T19:37:09.824+12:00Hi Peter,
Whether God is the mechanic, tinkering w...Hi Peter,<br />Whether God is the mechanic, tinkering with the spanner or the artist touching up canvas;is it not fair to assume that this is what is meant,' by the the world being reconciled to the Father in<br />and through Jesus Christ'?<br />Is it not also fair to assume, that at the completion of the creation process that it was perfect? <br />"And God saw every thing He had made,and,behold,it was very good".Gen 1:31. Or, was it okay in the meantime,but would evolve into something better?<br />If so,what is the meaning of :{And<br />God said,"Let us make man in our<br />image,after our likeness"].Gen 1:26<br />[So God created man in his own image,in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them].Gen 1:27.<br />There seems to be a philosophical flaw in the argument, that after being created in the image and likeness of God, we are evolving to some advanced form of man.<br />That there are disorders in the personality of man and physical tensions in the earths enviroment, can be put down to the curse of the Garden of Eden.<br />Or,did the perfect creation of God have the 'downhill slide' of the Laws of Thermodynamics built into it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03140119419720500905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42931803930920097752014-07-07T17:08:30.745+12:002014-07-07T17:08:30.745+12:00Michael Primrose has addressed precisely the conce...Michael Primrose has addressed precisely the concerns I raised in an earlier post, viz. that there is no reason to conclude that evolution (being driven, according to Neo-Darwinists, by random mutations at the genetic level producing changes which may or may not be useful for thriving in a particular environment but is quite unplanned, since there is no mind behind the process) has stopped for homo sapiens. This is not a problem for the atheist philosophical naturalist (the Pinkers, Sagans, Goulds etc as well as the Dawkins), but it does cast a big question mark over the claims of finality made for Christianity as well as Christianity's doctrine of creation. Why would God become incarnate as a man if something greater than homo sapiens is destined to succeed this particular primate? How can man be 'the summit of creation' if we are still climbing the mountain?<br />There is also this methodological problem:<br />"The Horseshoe Crabs, who breed and lay their eggs on beaches, but who spend the majority of their time in the sea, seem to have found a successful adaptation about 450 million years ago and stuck to it. Other animals became gradually better adapted to living on land and evolved accordingly to fill a potentially useful areas."<br />Lucky old Horseshoe Crab! And I do mean 'old'. How many hundreds of millions of generations of this crab have there been in 450 million years? Yet despite enormous changes in water and air temperature, oxygen levels, food supplies and (presumably) predators, none of this seems to have bothered the horseshoe crab? Is it not also asserted (IIRC) that the shark has been unchanged for 300 million years? Isn't this an example of petition principii?<br /><br />Grammaticus<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43012327864104027892014-07-07T13:23:05.087+12:002014-07-07T13:23:05.087+12:00Hi Peter,
You commented earlier in the blog that ...Hi Peter,<br /><br />You commented earlier in the blog that “in the sense that an amoeba becomes a fish becomes a salamander becomes a mammal etc and, bingo, apes, Neanderthal man etc.”. My understanding of evolution is that the process is gradual and occurs with minute changes. Fortunately, you don’t suddenly go from two fish to a salamander in one step, but rather there are changes and adaptations over a number of generations and those that are better adapted to live in a new ecological niche, thrive and breed to take advantage of it.<br /><br />There are any number of intermediated steps along the way and some have found a comfortable niche and stayed there to exploit it. The Horseshoe Crabs, who breed and lay their eggs on beaches, but who spend the majority of their time in the sea, seem to have found a successful adaptation about 450 million years ago and stuck to it. Other animals became gradually better adapted to living on land and evolved accordingly to fill a potentially useful areas.<br /><br />Lots of time and many generations, and also the availability of an exploitable environment, seem to be the requirements for next small step in the evolution of any species to occur. The first occurrences of a more successful adaptation may be present in the next baby you pass in a stroller, but we are unlikely to see it for a large number of generations to come. <br /><br />We don’t assume that evolution and continuing adaptation has stopped for other creatures, why then do we assume that “man” alone is cursed with the inability to change? Creatures with far faster reproductive cycles than ourselves are changing before our eyes, hence the current concern with “Super Bugs”. It may less than a century since we found Penicillin, but that has been an age for bugs, and more than enough time to breed a new version that is adapted to an environment with antibiotics present.<br /><br />So why has “man” stopped changing? Perhaps only faith can say with certainty that he has, but science can not say so. If it is any consolation, the new version of “Beyond-man” will only be around long after our current civilisation is dust and fragments of memory, so it won’t really worry us. Assuming we leave a world that our descendants can live in and adapt to of course<br /><br />Michael Primrose, ChristchurchMichael Primrosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61748294644098654952014-07-07T05:48:34.700+12:002014-07-07T05:48:34.700+12:00Sorry, sorry, sorry grammaticus/Janice for the ung...Sorry, sorry, sorry grammaticus/Janice for the ungrammatical yet conceptual error I meant Aquinus maintained the sun went around the earth not vice-versa, mixed two common past misconceptions.....<br /><br />I did think though it was Aristotle whom Thomas Aquinus and most people at that time got their ideas of the working of the universe from. I thought Galileo preferred the workings of Capernicus and theologically Augustine? I did read though he wasn't exactly wise in his comments to the Pope!!<br /><br />Blessings JeanJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73324320306676344092014-07-06T22:58:09.528+12:002014-07-06T22:58:09.528+12:00I love your last sentence at 10.09pm, Peter. Sound...I love your last sentence at 10.09pm, Peter. Sounds pretty fair to me. All these intellectuals trying to sort out the mind of God. It simply won't work!<br /><br />"I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for hiding these things from the learned and clever, and revelaing them to the simple"<br /><br />A Quaker Song:<br /><br />''Tis a gift to be simple ,'tis a gift to be free; 'tis a gift to come down where you ought to be; And when you find yourself in a place just right; You'll be in the valley of joy and delight.'<br /><br />"My ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts your thoughts".Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47507187431231170062014-07-06T22:09:15.703+12:002014-07-06T22:09:15.703+12:00Hi Janice
I wonder if it is more helpful to think ...Hi Janice<br />I wonder if it is more helpful to think of God as an artist constantly working on his masterpiece than as a (say) a mechanic or clock keeper regularly running around (or even just occasionally) making adjustments to his machine like world.<br /><br />Yet putting things like that exposes the folly of imagining God's involvement in the universe in any kind of anthropomorphic terms.<br /><br />One theological answer to your question is to propose that God's relationship to the universe is not the relationship we imagine we would have if we were God!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32128297132136987202014-07-06T21:38:35.196+12:002014-07-06T21:38:35.196+12:00Finally, I have a question for the systematic theo...Finally, I have a question for the systematic theologians among us, or anyone else who can provide an answer.<br /><br />Isaac Newton, while working on gravity and three body equations, came to the conclusion that the solar system is unstable and that, eventually, the planets will collide and the system will collapse. He decided that God must give the planets whatever occasional nudge is required to keep them on their course. Gottfried Leibniz disagreed most heartily with this suggestion and accused Newton of having demeaned God who, in Leibniz' view, would have set everything up to run perfectly at the start.<br /><br />Newton's suggestion that God interacts from time to time with his creation to "nudge" elements of it to keep them on their course reminds me of 'theistic evolution'. (Of course, Leibniz' position reminds me a little of Deism but he doesn't seem to have been as Deistic as a fellow at BioLogos who appears to believe that God wound up the universe's "clock" even before the Big Bang. So there was no, "Let there be ...," ever declaimed, no Adam and Eve, no Cain and Abel, no Tower of Babel I suppose, and maybe even no Abraham. I can't remember where this fellow set the line beyond which we can believe what the Bible says.)<br /><br />What I want to know is whether or not God's interventions in natural processes (miracles?) can properly be said to be as repetitive as fixing the orbits of the planets in the solar system, or as necessarily routine as fixing/improving a bit of DNA here, there and everywhere over the supposed aeons during which life is supposed to have existed on earth in order to eventually finish up with the naked, thinking ape. I thought God performs miracles for signs but that would presume that there is some creature around capable of noticing a sign and thinking about what it might mean.Janicenoreply@blogger.com