JB> On the CONTINUED existence of the universe, are you saying that, on the
> basis of science we can't explain why things keep existing? I agree that "He
> holds all things together", but I have always put this in the category of
> "... your heavenly father feeds them." (i.e. Providence).
I would say that science can't EXPLAIN why "things keep existing." That
is a metaphysical question; science can only OBSERVE that they do. From
our temporal perspective, it makes sense to call _de_novo_ creation
"miracle" and continued existence "providence." From an atemporal
perspective, they probably look the same.
---------------
> LH> I'm open to the possibility of more
> >such miracles as a part of origins, but I await a convincing hermeneutical
> >or scientific argument.
JB> So you're in philosophical agreement with Phil Johnson? The only difference
> being that what PJ sees as convincing, you don't?
That's fairly accurate. I agree with PJ's main point that we should be
open to the possibility of supernatural events in our explanatory models.
I agree that some philosophical Naturalists have oversold the evidence in
claiming macroevolution to be "proved," when in fact it is not. I do
disagree with his assessment of the scientific evidence. PJ hasn't
elaborated his hermeneutical criteria, so I can't comment on that. My
main problem with PJ is his apparent assumption that "theistic realists"
who disagree with him about one particular issue -- macroevolution -- must
be infected with Naturalism.
---------------------
JB> Shouldn't the historical interpretations of the church also bear some weight
> in this matter?
Absolutely.
JB> We know that the church has been questioning whether the
> days of Genesis 1 are 24 hour days from the very beginning. However, I am
> not aware of any controversy over the de novo creation of Adam and Eve until
> very recent times. This leads me to be fairly open-minded on how to
> interpret Gen. 1, (I like the Ps. 104 is a verse by verse commentary
> approach) but makes me reluctant to accept the TE view of Gen. 2 which
> allows humans to have animal ancestors.
> I think it's hard to say that Gen. 2:7 "The Lord God formed the man from the
> dust of the ground..." and Gen. 2:22 "Then the Lord God made a woman from
> the rib he had taken out of the man..." are to be taken in the sense of "...
> your heavenly father feeds them."
That's very true. The genetic homologies between primates and the hominid
fossil record push me towards a gradualist interpretation of human
origins. But a straightforward reading of the text, the church's
historical interpretations of Gen 2-3, and theological issues such as
Original Sin, argue for an abrupt event. They make me hesitate at
adopting a completely gradualist interpretation. I'm not settled on the
matter. (Glenn Morton's x-million-year-old Adam interpretation, and the
"two Adam" / biological-unity interpretation mentioned by Stephen Jones,
both resolve these issues pretty well, though I still have a few problems
with them.)
---------------------
> LH> If we're going to take any items from Genesis 1 and add them to this list,
> > let's specify our criteria for determining which ones....
JB> Here's an addition I want to make:
> In Gen. 1, the phrase "according to their kinds" appears a number of times.
> Its use seems more consistent with a PC or a YEC view that a TE view.
> Our criteria will be:
> 1. Does a PC or YEC interpretation of this phrase fit the text better than a
> TE interpretation? Does it have any meaning whatsoever from a TE perspective?
> 2. Which interpretation does science favor?
> 3. What has the church historically done with this phrase? Argued it? or
> understood it in terms of the fixity of species (or kinds - however broad
> the term is)?
>
> Criteria (1) and (2) will be debated for a long time to come. And I'm
> interested in this debate. However, (3) should be easily answered. As far as
> I know, (3) is decisively in favor of PCs or YECs. Am I wrong about this?
> (PLEASE, if anyone wants to appeal to Augustine on this, quote the relevant
> passage).
Thanks for laying it out so carefully.
A few months ago in this group, several people wrote to suggest the
antecedent of "according to their kind" was "land," not "animals." The
land was ordered to produce living creatures appropriate to itself.
Maybe. Even if we agree that "according to their kinds" applies to the
creatures themselves, this does not preclude evolution. Each generation
produces offspring of a similar kind, although the cumulative effect of
many generations can be varied. The church may have traditionally
understood this in terms of the fixity of species, but as Stephen Jones
point out, the church for centuries also (mis)understood certain passages
in terms of an Aristotelean geocentrism. Fixity of species is definitely
an ancient Greek idea, and I expect that the church fathers picked it up
from there. (It is an eminently reasonable idea, supported by a wealth
of observational data ... until you have the chance to look at fossils and
distribution patterns of sub-species.) Fixity of species _may_ even have
been a Hebrew cultural idea. I don't think it's actually taught in
scripture.
Thanks for your excellent reply.
Loren Haarsma