On Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:01:43 -0500 you wrote:
BH>Stephen responding to Loren's list of theological reasons for
accepting
>macroevolution:
SJ>Besides, the use of "natural processes" does not invalidate
>"supernatural intervention". Jesus used his saliva to heal (Mk 7:33;
>8:23) and even saliva and mud (Jn 9:6). It is a hangover from
>Sunday-school theology to imagine that God creates only by snapping
>His fingers and "poof"! something appears out of nothing.
BH>First a quibble: I have never heard of saliva or mud curing anyone
>of anything. I believe these instances were purely miraculous. I
>don't think the saliva and the mud were simply "props", but surely
>Jesus was using (or activating) properties of these substances we
>don't normally see. But I readily agree that miracles and natural
>processes are not mutually exclusive. I thought it was creationists
>who took that position.
I did not say the "saliva or mud" of itself did the "curing". I simply
pointed out that Jesus did use some natural processes to help in
some of his miraculous healings.
As to "creationists" taking a "position", I am a progressive
"creationist" but I don't think that "miracles and natural processes"
are "mutually exclusive."
>LH>It is therefore consistent hermeneutically to hypothesize that
>God also used natural processes in biological history. Given our
>natural-processes interpretation of "... let dry ground appear," it
>seems arbritrary to interpret, "Let the earth bring forth..." as
>REQUIRING detectable supernatural intervention for the formation of
>first life, higher taxa, and novel features.
SJ>Requiring that "supernatural intervention" is "detectable" is
>raising the stakes unnecessarily. See above.
BH>Whoa! That's _exactly_ the point: much of creationist reasoning
>seems to me to imply that supernatural intervention is (or should be
>if we can only get smart enough) detectible.
Which "creationist reasoning" are you referring to? I have not said
it and nor has anyone on this Reflector, AFAIK.
SJ>The picture in Gn 1 is of God *commanding* "Let the earth bring
>forth..." vegetation (Gn 1:11); and animal life (Gn 1:20, 24). It
>is the same "And God said..." that is used in Gn 1:3 "And God said,
>Let there be light: and there was light". This indicates, at the
>very least *supernatural intervention* in what naturally existed at
>that point. Whether God used intermediate secondary natural
>processes is irrelevant.
SJ>Gn 2:7 indicates that God made man out of pre-existing materials
>"the dust of the ground", but that does not mean it was not a
>ultimately a "supernatural intervention".
SJ>If you interpret "Let the earth bring forth..." (Gn 1:11, 20, 24)
>as not requiring supernatural intervention, then to be consistent
>you should not require it anywhere else God issues a command and
>then makes or does something through intermediate processes.
BH>Whoa again!
This is starting to sound like a rodeo! :-)
BH>God's command _is_ the supernatural intervention. God
>commands, nature obeys.
Agreed. I said "if..." :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------