RE: Miracles and Science

From: Joel Z Bandstra (bandstra@ese.ogi.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 13:59:01 EST

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Kelly Creation and Change"

    This has been, to me, a most interesting thread of discussion so I'll chime
    in for once.

    I think it boils down to one of the very basic questions that is involved
    in most of the discussions on this list: How does God interact/influence
    the physical world and, especially, how is God's interaction congruent with
    or divergent from science (both as a body of knowledge and a way of
    investigating)? While I certainly can't purport to answer such a big
    question (I'm no philosopher) I think it important to make a point of
    maintaining the notion of God's sovereignty in our thinking on this issue.

    We have this tendency to separate phenomena into miraculous events and
    natural ones. There is, I think, something to such categorization but we
    should bear in mind that God's action in the natural world is not only
    through miracles. Or maybe better stated, there is some sense in which all
    happenings are miraculous, whether common like masses attracting or
    uncommon like the healing of arthritic hands on the occasion of prayer. As
    I read them, Psalm 104 and Mathew 6 give this impression most distinctly
    but I also get that same impression from the bible as a whole (though more
    subtly). This view, of course, has limitations. It leaves little room for
    free will and lends itself to the erroneous notion that God is responsible
    for our sins. Still, it is an important idea and we should be careful not
    to leave it out.

    On a related note, this discussion also touches very heavily on the problem
    of saying what science is. I offer for consideration that science does not
    provide explanation. It is, rather, a system for recognizing patterns and
    linking patterns that, otherwise, seem disjoint. For example, conservation
    of energy (Bernoulli's equation) does not explain why airplanes fly. It
    simply re-phrases the observation that airplanes fly. The power of it
    (Bernoulli's equation) is that it (i) allows us to talk about flying
    airplanes in a more specific way (design them to fly better and so forth)
    and (ii) allows us to see flying airplanes and Nolan Ryan's curve balls as
    following a similar pattern.

    The culmination of this would be something like "The reason why airplanes
    fly is God. The reason why science can describe flying airplanes is God's
    faithfulness."



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 13:44:09 EST