If the definition of a miracle is allowed to expand to include any wonderful
happening that can be explained by natural processes, then I agree, most TEs
have not excised miracles from creation. They have only (largely) excised
the supernatural.
>The greatest miracle of all -- the
>creation of man -- is something science can't address or "demiracleize" at
>all, because man is a spiritual as well as a physical being.
Ok, if you're claiming that TEs aren't excising the supernatural from
creation, let's formulate a list of supernatural events associated with
origins that most TEs would agree to? You've just alluded to the first
candidate - the de novo creation of man's soul. (Although, I think I've seen
even this questioned in this forum). What else?
I wrote:
>>Are there any other case studies where the church has really had to invent
>>new interpretations of Scripture, because the observable facts just didn't
>>line up with the existing ones?
and Bill Hamilton replied:
>I hope we never have to invent new interpretations of Scripture.
Well, I think you're rightly skeptical of new interpretations. However,
they're around in abundance. I've recently seen two new interpretations of
Scripture of substantial magnitude given here. Glenn's flood, and Stephen's
two Adam model (although he admits it wasn't original with him). Also, as
far as I can tell, the idea that Adam had animal ancestors is of fairly
recent origin. I'm interested in gathering a list of Biblical
interpretations, widely held to be true nowadays, that were not thought of -
say - before 500 AD. They don't have to be concerned with origins.
Jim
Jim Blake
Associate Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843