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.
Okay. However, I find that a rather unpersuasive example of Jesus using a
natural process. I p[refer to think of it simply as a mriaculous healing.
I don't know what role the saliva and mud played, but it seems to me he
invested it with a role it normally doesn't play, and to me that's
miraculous.
>
>As to "creationists" taking a "position", I am a progressive
>"creationist" but I don't think that "miracles and natural processes"
>are "mutually exclusive."
As usual I was using "creationist" as an abgreviation for "young-earth
creationist". Sorry.
>
>>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.
No, you haven't. This is primarily a characteristic of the scientific
creationists when they argue that "evolutionists can't explain x.
Therefore x represents a direct intervention of God." That sort of
reasoning attributes much more intelligence to evolutionists than I believe
ought to be. Just because scientists can't explain something doesn't mean
it was a direct intervention of God. And just because they _can_ explain
it doesn't mean it _wasn't_. I tend to see God as active at all levels in
nature. Some of the young-earth creationist arguments seem to see nature
as something that "coasts" between nudges by God. I don't like that
implication. Please bear with me -- I have not had many discussions with
PC's.
>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".
Agreed.
>
>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>God's command _is_ the supernatural intervention. God
>>commands, nature obeys.
>
>Agreed. I said "if..." :-)
>
But did Loren mean to rule out supernatural intervention, or was he simply
saying that the supernatural intervention is not incontrovertibly evident
from the physical evidence itself? Loren?
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)