Newton and Laplace seem to have thought so.

For Laplace, we have the famous anecdote, Napoleon seemed to have gathered from Newton that when planetary orbits get out of hand (by natural processes, no doubt), God or angels shoved them back into the right place and speed for the solar system to go on.

Laplace, according to the anecdote, answered "I do not find this hypothesis necessary" ...

For Newton, we have some news (real or fake news) that he agreed with Laplace (whether the anecdote itself was real or fake news).

As a classic example of GOTG, unbelievers bring up Isaac Newton, who supposedly invoked the direct Hand of God, in ad hoc fashion, whenever he could not explain some aspect of planetary motion. Meyer actually re-examined Newton’s Principia and found this to be untrue. It turns out to be a rationalistic legend. Newton did invoke God in a providential sense, but never as a gap-filler. As Meyer explains:

“Third, though Newton affirmed these powers of God, he did not postulate occasional, special, or singular acts of God in place of a law-like description of planetary motion or to remedy irregularities in the laws of nature or to fix an unstable planetary system. Newton thought that God was responsible on an ongoing basis for the mathematical regularities evident in nature, not fixing irregularities or rectifying instabilities [emphasis in original]” (p. 429; see also p. 518).

CMI : The existence of specified information in the universe points to a creator God
Journal of Creation 36(1):26–29, April 2022
https://creation.com/review-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-meyer

(A review of: Return of the God Hypothesis: Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe by Stephen C. Meyer, Harper One, New York, 2021, reviewed by John Woodmorappe)

Let's see his background ...

In 1981, Meyer graduated from Whitworth College before being employed at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985.[6] Meyer then took up a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University, where he earned a Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy in history and the philosophy of science in 1991.[7] His dissertation was entitled "Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research".[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

And the reviewer's ...

John decided to major in both geology and biology because of the pivotal role of these two disciplines in the study of origins. He ended up with a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology. Woodmorappe is constantly learning new things on his own, and conducting scientific research. He now has numerous publications, including the following three books:

https://creation.com/john-woodmorappe

Oops ... neither of them is an astronomer ...

What exactly is the kind of instability Newton is at least purported to have said needed occasional direct action from God? The kind of instability that Napoleon is at least purported to have understood Newton as considering?

After a video from NASA, with water droplets dancing around electrically charged knitting needles ...

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
Space Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

I concluded that even the "two body problem" (Earth and Moon excluding consideration of the Sun, Earth-Moon - as one body - and Sun excluding consideration of other planets) would involve an instability, which would make the Heliocentric Newtonian system unstable in much less than 4.5 billion years. I came up with an expression of it here, before a debate with "Darael" made me reconsider using this argument, in the comments under it:

New blog on the kid : Newtonianly speaking, Can Earth Still Orbit Sun After 4.5 Billion Years?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/newtonianly-speaking-can-earth-still.html

After this debate, I cling to two remnants of it, as disproving Heliocentrism in the long run:

• what about the many-body problem?
• it's not just earth that loses atmosphere, but the Sun loses mass as well.

These points, as I recall, and for the second, as I saw when checking, Darael chose not to argue about. In other words, I could still have a point.

What Newton possibly would have been thinking of is the many-body problem.

The orbital mechanics of a two-body problem are at least slightly affected by the presence of even a third clearly distinct body (Earth, Moon and Sun are not a three-body problem, since Earth and Moon function as one body in relation to the Sun - but Earth, Jupiter, Sun, that's a three-body problem).

When Earth supposedly orbits the Sun, Earth is obviously affected by the gravitation from the Sun. And the Sun, very much less, by the gravitation from Earth. But the orbit of Earth on a given side of the Sun (for instance the Virgo side back in early March) is also affected by whether Jupiter is at the moment:

• on the same side of the Sun as Earth, outside Earth, obviously, like Jupiter in Virgo while Sun is in Pisces
• on the other side of the Sun than Earth, like Jupiter and Sun both in Pisces
• at an angle from the line Earth to Sun, like Sun in Pisces and Jupiter neither Pisces nor Virgo.

Neither Newton nor Laplace had computers. It seems some Chinese researchers did a computer modelling testing the many-body programme. Their verdict was, it could be stable or instable, depending on initial conditions.

But it is arguable, the astronomers not knowing all the factors, that the Chinese researchers couldn't put all the factors into the computer programme.

If by any chance the Heliocentric system, functioning Newtonianly, on Newtonian principles, is after all stable, that would make the Solar System a great illustration of the watchmaker analogy, by Paley. After seeing Testify (Erik Manning's youtube), I'd consider Paley is better off in Gospel apologetics. However, St. Thomas made another analogy than the watchmaker about God. It's like God was both the perfect Fender and the perfect Tommaso Zillio, if we take electric guitars as the instrument. Or God was both the perfect harpmaker and the perfect harpist. The latter - i e God's continuous acts of for instance turning the Universe (below Empyrean Heaven) around Earth - is what St. Thomas based his arguments for God on.

With the watchmaker analogy, one asks, perhaps - "has the watchmaker died or lost interest?" - which is Deism.
With the instrument builder and instrumentalist analogy, it is obvious God is in charge. Which He is according to Christianity.

One should not be bashful when someone speaks of "God of the Gaps fallacy" - in Aristotle, there is no such thing, and in later logic, also not, it was only added as a propaganda stunt by Evolutionists - Nietzsche and a Scottish Free Church Minister, Henry Drummond. Both were heavily biassed against Classic Theism. However, while Heliocentrism of Newtonian mechanism might be possible with Classic Theism, not just as possible for God, but rather therefore also a possible interpretation of what we have, with Classic Theism, there is no necessity for Heliocentrism of Newtonian mechanism, which is not the preferrable thing in epistemology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Week Thursday
13.IV.2023