Last month I wrote a post arguing against the neo-scholastic belief (often shared with less than clear understanding by Evolutionary Creationists) that God’s activity cannot on first principles be observed in the world, lest he be regarded as just another cause within the causal system of the cosmos. I argued that though the principle of God’s radical separateness from his Creation is sound, the conclusion that the Creation must be causally complete within itself is not. I argued from the Genesis creation account that established secondary causes are not, theologically, necessarily sufficient to explain all we see around us.
Search
-
Recent Posts
- Does matter matter? 06/05/2026
- We meet the Word in the word, not in the world 02/05/2026
- The triumph of the cross 29/04/2026
- What I think I know about life in the deep past 26/04/2026
- How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time) 24/04/2026
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Robert Byers on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Hanan on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
Post Archive
