Well, I’d get to God’s authorship of events, at it’s most convenient, by citing #304, that “sovereignty over the course of events” can be appropriately expressed in Scripture by bypassing the mention of secondary causes (as if they were mere agents). That is the very antithesis of nature’s autonomy (whatever that means - I’ve never been able to work out how being bound by natural law and contingency becomes “creaturely liberty” when considering the irrational creation theologically).
Such authorship could be expressed in words such as:
“The sun goes down (natural event) and God brings night (divine action). The lion hunts for prey (natural event), and they seek their food from God (divine providence). The Bible clearly proclaims that God is fully in charge of natural events.”
That writer (Haarsma) goes on to quote from the Belgic Confession: “… nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.”
Now I think any metaphysical conundrum which that poses (and it’s a genuine case of paradox, and one that is unresolved throughout Scripture, presumably deliberately) is no greater than explaining how God can be sovereign over ends without also “arranging” the means. But as far as this post is an “orderly arrangement”, it’s because I’m its author - what else could it mean?
To deduce double predestination from Russell’s possibility that “nothing happens in this [quantum] world without his orderly arrangement” (he is in fact deliberately equivocal about that in his writing) seems to me extrapolating too much. Far too much.
Let’s follow it through, lapsing into the worst-case scenario, a free, and evil, mental choice of mine to believe the wrong thing (though Russell’s interest is actually in natural evolution). According to traditional doctrine God sustains me and my brain and my will in existence, including its operations moment by moment - this is divine sustenance, or creatio continua, if you’re Orthodox. We needn’t venture on to his “governance” of those operations in order to address Russell’s hypothesis.
On a “soft” (sub-Thomistic) Catholic understanding, “The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.” (RC cat #308), and this mercy extends even to my evil deeds. The idea is that I could not will or act anything apart from God’s active providence enabling me.
On that basis, supposing (for the argument) that my mental activity involves specific quantum events, then I have no “autonomous” way of producing those events, unless they have their final causation in God, making him at least in order of events their author:
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (RC. cat. #308, continued).
So in that Catholic understanding (not far from Augustine and most Reformed thought) the initiation of quantum events by God would be part of the way that God allows the very possibility of my free action, by being the First cause (in terms of the physical event) “co-operating with” a secondary cause (my evil will).
Augustine, of course, would have gone further by insisting that the evil I freely willed also served a pre-existing good purpose of God, by which means his co-operation in my action does not have the character of sin, but of divine wisdom and righteousness tending towards his final good. And Calvin followed him in that, but went further back to the eternal purposes of God for individuals - perhaps a step too far for secure conclusions, but then (as Merv has pointed out here) we none of us like to step back from telling God how to do his work.
None of those further arguments, though, affect the idea of God as the First Cause of all events, as well as all objects, in their physical aspect - which is all Russell has in view. The alternative is to make God only the Creator of “things”, their mere existence being the whole matter of God’s sustaining, and their actions and functions being carried on apart from God’s governance - yet in some mysterious (incoherent?) manner still moving towards his ends.
Apart from anything else, John Walton’s insights into the functional nature of the biblical creation is against that - God does not merely create and govern what the world is made of, but how it will go… that is, what the created things will do. In traditional Christianity, that is the glory of his creativeness. In terms of Russell’s immediate subject, the evolution of life, the fact of Jesus being “the author of life” would resonate well with him being, necessarily, the author of the mutations that lead to it.