>>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>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.
SJ> Agreed. I said "if..." :-)
BH> 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 understands correctly. I do not rule out supernatural intervention
(detectable OR undetectable) for the formation of first life, higher taxa,
and novel biological features. The physical evidence IS ambiguous on
these points, and the Genesis 1 text itself does not make clear which
particular _modus_operandi_ God used. I merely suggest that we inform our
hermeneutics of "Let the earth bring forth..." by looking at neighboring
passages IN THE SAME TEXT where the physical evidence is less ambiguous.
Thanks in part to relatively unambiguous physical evidence, our current
understanding (and hermeneutical interpretation) of the creation of the
earth's land, oceans, atmosphere, the sun, moon, stars, etc. (Days 2,3,4)
has a mixture of "supernatural intervention" and "natural processes" that
looks something like this:
1) Supernatural intervention in issuing the commands. This includes:
a) pre-planning the final forms
b) pre-planning the physical laws and processes which would produce them
c) de novo creation of the raw materials
d) setting the initial conditions
2) ASSEMBLY of the particular forms via natural processes. This includes:
a) providential sustaining and governance of natural processes
b) in certain cases, "undetectable guidance" of stochastic processes
to select the _particular_ outcome amongst many possible outcomes.
If this is considered a good hermeneutic for "Let dry land appear...,"
then it seems to be a good working hypothesis for "Let the earth bring
forth...." (Especially since the biological evidence is still ambiguous.)
But it is, as I said, a _working_ hypothesis and subject to change based
on additional theological or scientific insights.
--------------
In answer to Stephen's point:
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. If you followed through this
> interpretation consistently I suggest you would end up de-miracle-ising
> the Bible and end up with something close to Deism.
No, that would be an oversimplification of my hermeneutics.
I am offering an internally consistent hermeneutics for a particular
passage (Genesis 1) with its own unique set of literary features. Other
scriptural passages which share that one feature (God issues a command and
then makes or does something through intermediate processes) may have
different features not present in Genesis 1 (e.g. eye-witnesses who
receive or give an accompanying verbal revelation explaining its
significance; events restricted to a relatively brief time period).
---------------
(BTW: I am preparing brief replies to Stephen's point-by-point critique
of my "Theological reasons..." post. I'll post them all when Stephen is
finished. No rush.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." | Loren Haarsma
--the Emperor (_Return_of_the_Jedi_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu