> Well, I am not "open to a non-interventionist account" for the origin
> of life. If scientists prove that life can originate spontaneously,
> without even human intervention, from non-living chemicals, then I
> think I would give up Christianity and probably theism (although I
> might become a pantheist). And I think that there would be hundreds
> of millions of Christians who would agree with me. The effect would
> be *devastating* and would far surpass anything Copernicus or Darwin
> did. It would be the crowning achievement of materialistic-
> naturalism. You wouldn't have a job Terry, because there would be no
> Calvin College.
[I've snipped Loren's response, which I pretty much agree with]
You say the above after having said earlier
> How can naturalistic science ever know about the actual "origin" of
> anything in the distant past? If God created progressively by
> supernaturally "genetically engineering" Hox genes, how would
> naturalistic science ever know that? Even if it happened *today* in a
> scientists laboratory, science would not know *how* it happened - it
> would know only that it happened. How much less can science know about
> unique events that ocurred hundreds and even thousands of millions of
> years ago? All naturalistic science can do is come up with the least
> implausible *naturalistic* explanation of how it *might* have
> happened.
In view of this, which I agree with, why do you even hypothesize what you
would do "If scientists prove that life can originate spontaneously,
without even human intervention, from non-living chemicals"? Let's lay the
human intervention part aside. To prove that life can originate
spontaneously without creative acts of God, and can survive without His
oversight, would require the identification and elimination of every means
God could possibly use to create and oversee. That is not within the scope
of science.
Loren of course hit the nail on the head with
>So I do not understand the
>hermeneutical or theological logic of placing "the formation of
>self-replicating biochemical entities" in the SAME category as revelation,
>the incarnation, the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit INSTEAD of placing
>it in the same category as "the formation of the solar system."
The fundamental difference between scientific descriptions and revelation
is that revelation comes from a Person who cares. He cared enough to send
us Jesus Christ and then He cared enough to send the Holy Spirit, without
Whom we would not be able to understand His revelation in Scripture.
Science is subject to human frailties. But our fellowship with God and our
salvation are built on a more solid foundation -- and praise Him for that.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)