rmwilliamsjr
March 4th 2004, 03:25 PM
it seems to me that one of the valuable ways to organize the topics in the CED creation-evolution-design debate is to ask a series of nested questions:
did the universe have a beginning?
[the necessity of a Creator]
a)creatio ex nihilo
b)always existent universe
assume a) then is the universe complete at this point?
[the radical continguency and insufficiency of the creation]
a)complete, laws etc are sufficient --- deist answer
b)fully gifted creation --- H. Van Till
c)creation continues to require God's providential or creation hand
assume c) the difference between providence and creationist techniques is that providence looks like methodological naturalism and creationism looks like supernatural/miracleous intervention contrary to established laws.
the question is concerning the expectation of how God has acted, more creatively or more providentially?
a)miracle predominate in the physical world
b)miracles are predominately in the spiritual world, with regard to people and to Jesus Himself. they like the spiritual gifts in the church exists to authenicate that these things are from God.
It is not my desire to build any kind of complete tree but rather refine the questions that got me to where i am today. I am a conservative Reformed Christian, at all times, and in all places God has fully determined the physical universe and is doing exactly what He intends to do. The creation is not 'fighting Him', it doesnt have a willing of its own, as the gnostics taught. But rather is like clay in the potters hand, doing what it is told to do. The laws of the universe are our human terms that try to capture the attributes of God that He built into the very structure of the universe, and into our very constitution.
Evolution is simply the technic that God uses to drive the process that got us to here. Every mating, every mutation has God's hand underneath it, as does the very substance of the universe, so if He ceased to actively uphold it, the universe would simply cease to exist. Both are cases of providence, but at different levels.
So the big question. Can i post here under the rules as outlined on the sticky thread? I contend that i am as creationist as any YEC, i am perhaps more deterministic than most as i am a self-consciously reformed. I argue the necessity of a Creator, the insufficiency of matter to organize itself or to progress in any manner, that teleology is fully a part of the biological realm, the universe moves towards the final judgement. Life moves in the direction God chooses.
My argument is that science as technic is self limited to a methodological naturalism and therefore can not see these things. nor should it, these ideas are theological, not scientific.
so is it your intention to bar my kind from this forum?
if so then transfer this thread to the right forum please.
i want to thank jason for starting the thread
"how much do we really disagree ?" and for those that responded so that i started thinking more in this direction. it is a good thing.
tia.
did the universe have a beginning?
[the necessity of a Creator]
a)creatio ex nihilo
b)always existent universe
assume a) then is the universe complete at this point?
[the radical continguency and insufficiency of the creation]
a)complete, laws etc are sufficient --- deist answer
b)fully gifted creation --- H. Van Till
c)creation continues to require God's providential or creation hand
assume c) the difference between providence and creationist techniques is that providence looks like methodological naturalism and creationism looks like supernatural/miracleous intervention contrary to established laws.
the question is concerning the expectation of how God has acted, more creatively or more providentially?
a)miracle predominate in the physical world
b)miracles are predominately in the spiritual world, with regard to people and to Jesus Himself. they like the spiritual gifts in the church exists to authenicate that these things are from God.
It is not my desire to build any kind of complete tree but rather refine the questions that got me to where i am today. I am a conservative Reformed Christian, at all times, and in all places God has fully determined the physical universe and is doing exactly what He intends to do. The creation is not 'fighting Him', it doesnt have a willing of its own, as the gnostics taught. But rather is like clay in the potters hand, doing what it is told to do. The laws of the universe are our human terms that try to capture the attributes of God that He built into the very structure of the universe, and into our very constitution.
Evolution is simply the technic that God uses to drive the process that got us to here. Every mating, every mutation has God's hand underneath it, as does the very substance of the universe, so if He ceased to actively uphold it, the universe would simply cease to exist. Both are cases of providence, but at different levels.
So the big question. Can i post here under the rules as outlined on the sticky thread? I contend that i am as creationist as any YEC, i am perhaps more deterministic than most as i am a self-consciously reformed. I argue the necessity of a Creator, the insufficiency of matter to organize itself or to progress in any manner, that teleology is fully a part of the biological realm, the universe moves towards the final judgement. Life moves in the direction God chooses.
My argument is that science as technic is self limited to a methodological naturalism and therefore can not see these things. nor should it, these ideas are theological, not scientific.
so is it your intention to bar my kind from this forum?
if so then transfer this thread to the right forum please.
i want to thank jason for starting the thread
"how much do we really disagree ?" and for those that responded so that i started thinking more in this direction. it is a good thing.
tia.