You wrote: “...What we see “with” the eye plays out on the horizontal; to see “through” the eye, the vertical is necessary. ...The first three causes unfold horizontally (and irreversibly) in time. But the final cause is not to be found on that line. It can only be understood in terms of “vertical extension” relative to the horizontal one. ...”
Along those lines, here’s a paper (and a book) you and some others might find interesting:
George Murphy holds a PhD in physics from Johns Hopkins and an MDiv from Wartburg Seminary, making him one of a rather small group of people with advanced degrees in both science and theology.
George Murphy:
“God is the First Cause who cooperates with 2d causes, & that the latter is what science studies. I would emphasize that 2d causes are real causes so that, inter alia, humans are real agents.
The traditional view of providence is that God preserves creatures, cooperates with them in their actions, and governs creation toward God’s desired ends. If we think of creatures as having static natures then we’ll picture providence as God keeping those natures in existence & then concurring in their motions. The similarity of this view with the Newtonian picture that I sketched earlier is significant, though it’s originally Aristotelian. But things in the world aren’t inert. They are “composed” of the same interactions that are involved in their motions. It seems to me then that we ought to understand God’s cooperation with creatures as fundamental, and to say that God preserves creatures precisely by cooperating with them.
I discussed divine action in greater detail in Chapter 6 of The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Light-Cross-George-Murphy/dp/1563384175
.... and to a lesser extent in this paper: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html
Excerpt:
[snip]
In any case, we are faced with a paradoxical idea of “mediated creatio ex nihilo” in which God brings into being the instruments with which God will bring things into being.24
It is worth noting that this paradox is by no means a modern one. The ancient rabbinic tractate Pirke Aboth includes in a list of things created on the eve of the first Sabbath, “The tongs made with tongs.”25
More is involved here than a logical puzzle. Even in the origination of the universe, God acts through instruments that are simultaneously masks of God. God is willing to be emptied of the credit for creation, so that the Creator is indeed the one “placed crosswise in the universe.”
Given that physical reality, which does obey the types of laws we have found, does exist, it may be possible to explain the origin even of matter and space-time itself in terms of an adequate quantum theory of gravitation and matter.
Similar things can be said about the origin of living things. It is true that we do not yet have an adequate theory of chemical evolution, of the emergence of the first living systems from nonliving chemicals. But there is no theological rationale for the idea often expressed to the effect that life must have been brought into being by God’s direct and unmediated action. In fact, the first Genesis account of creation points in just the opposite direction, for there plants and animals come into being when God commands the elements of the world, the earth and the waters, to bring them forth (Gen. 1:11-12, 20-21, 24-25). The statement of Ephrem of Edessa on the creation of plants expresses this understanding of the mediated creation of living things held by a number of the church fathers. He said:
Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything. While God is able to bring forth everything from the earth without these things, it was his will to show that there was nothing created on earth that was not created for the purpose of mankind or for his service.26
Though it would exceed the scope of the present paper, the question of miracles needs to be part of any thorough discussion of divine action which takes the Bible seriously.27
Yet the Bible gives us no reason to think that the origin of life must be understood as a miracle that cannot be explained in terms of natural processes.
[snip] click here to read the whole paper : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html
Roughly 2-3 years a Christian at that point, the answer to the first question came pretty quickly, "Yes, He would create with an appearance of age." I can only say that the notion of soil passed before my eyes, and it seemed to me that soil is the result of a long process, but it is also necessary for plants to grow.
To the second question, "Was He trying to stump us?" I replied, "No." I had no insight at the time, I just didn't think God's intent was to fool everyone.
Since then, I've come to believe that God does sometimes set up conditions that permit foolish people to fool themselves (see the story of Micaiah and Ahab), but I would still say, "No." I've viewed it more like my setting up a sealed terrarium with the proper balance of plants and animals to establish a self-sustaining system.
Am I to question God on how He established the earth? (God to Job: who are you to question me on the foundation of the earth?)
Creating tools to enable tools to enable life.
The appearance of age.
Nothing is unreasonable or impossible except a literal interpretation of Genesis...
Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything. While God is able to bring forth everything from the earth without these things, it was his will to show that there was nothing created on earth that was not created for the purpose of mankind or for his service.26
An excellent example of how the Marxists, through environmentalism, try to drive a wedge between man and God. Their premise is that man is here to serve Gaia, Mother Earth, rather than the other way around. They think the entire universe would be better off without man. What better way to eliminate God? Of course, as with all things liberal, they intend to exempt themselves from that extinction.
"...envisions a world that was brought into being (and is continually sustained in being) only by the effective will of God, a world radically dependent upon God for every one of its capacities for creaturely action, a world gifted by God from the outset with all of the form-producing capacities necessary for the actualization of the multitude of physical structures and life forms that have appeared in the course of Creation's formative history, and a world whose formational fecundity can be understood only as a manifestation of the Creator's continuous blessing for fruitfulness. In such a Creation there would be no need for God to perform acts of 'special creation' in time because it has no gaps in its developmental economy that would necessitate bridging by extraordinary divine interventions of the sort often postulated by Special Creationism...."...'We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.'"
IOW, "special creation" is not needed because of the (kenotic) nature of God's "intelligent design," which "suffices for all things, and more than suffices" as Heraclitus put it. We are speaking here of the Logos, the Word of God....
Thank you so very much, Matchett-PI, for your outstanding essay/post — and the valuable links!