This is a re-post. Sorry if you get it twice.
On Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:22:39 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
[...]
LH>...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.
LH>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.
I have no problem with the above. Except, that I would interpret Gn 1
in the light of the whole Biblical picture of a God who intervenes in
history at strategic points. IMHO TE is more a hangover from
classical and Neo- Darwinist gradualism. The lastest evidence as
discovered by Punctuated Equilibriam, is that there is no gradualist
continuum between the origin of the higher taxa, but rather external
factors (eg. asteroid collisions, etc) were a major feature. For
example, see Kemp T., "The Reptiles that Became Mammals", New
Scientist, vol. 92, 4 March 1982. This is more consistent, IMHO,
with PC than TE.
[...]
>(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.)
Sorry. I had moved it out of my in-tray and forgot about it. Now
resumed
- see this session! :-)
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------