Glenn Morton wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> >Behalf Of george murphy
> >Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:01 AM
> >bivalve wrote:
> >
> >> The Westminster Confession of Faith appeals to the "light of nature"
> >> (as well as many arguments from Scripture) to support the contention
> >> that transubstantiation is incorrect. This use of physical evidence
> >> to support a less literalistic interpretation seems like a good
> >> parallel for the appeal to physical evidence in interpreting Genesis
> >> 1. My only attempt so far at applying this reasoning had an already
> >> unreceptive audience, so I cannot tell if it is likely to sway others.
> >
> > This is an interesting analogy. I had not thought of this before
> >but there is some similarity between transsubstantiation and "apparent
> >age" arguments for YEC. In fact it might be possible to cast the latter
> >in Aristotelian form by saying that the substance of creation is ~6000
> >years old but that its accidents give the appearance of billions of years
> >of age.
>
> George, isn't this just a gussied up version of the appearance of age
> argument? What is the difference between that and what Henry Morris says?
Sure. As I said, it's simply a use of Aristotelian or scholastic
terminology - & I don't know if you could really carry the argument through in
that way. Maybe Dave Siemens or some other philosopher could comment. In any
case I see no reason to believe it. In that regard the argument is different
from the use of Aristotelian categories to explain the sacramental presence of
Christ because Christ really is present in the sacrament, but the world isn't
really 6000 years old.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 23:07:50 EDT