> These comments & questions are primarily directed to proponents of
> the "functional integrity" argument against special acts (plural)
> of creation.
>
> As I understand the argument, miraculous acts of creation (after
> the "initial creation event" or "big bang singularity") ought to
> be ruled out not merely on methodological grounds, but on
> theological grounds; namely that such acts imply imperfection or
> insufficiency in the initial creative act of God.
>
> At the same time, from within a Christian perspective, other
> sorts of miracles are allowed: certain OT miracles, the virginal
> conception of Christ, His miracles while on earth, the resurrection,
> and certain apostolic miracles.
>
> My question is this: Why do _these_ miracles not also violate
> the functional integrity priciple? Surely God could have
> so orchestrated the initial creation that these "miracles" merely
> arose as a matter of course. Why do they receive special treatment
> --or do they?
One obvious difference is the personal nature of miracles in "salvation
history." There were eye witnesses to whom God was communicating a
particular message. That's one good reason for "special treatment."
The phrase "ruled out" (third line in your second paragraph) is too
strong. It is not necessary to "rule out" miraculous acts. It is
sufficient merely to conclude that an explanation without miraculous
acts (relying only on "creaturely capacities" and providence) is
possible, perhaps probable, and theologically acceptable. (By contrast,
"non-miraculous" explanations of the other miracles in scripture are
considered by most Christians to be impossible, or at least very
improbable, and theologically unacceptable.)
The phrase "functional integrity" is a summary of several lines of
argument. Suppose a Christian physicist saw an unaccountable deflection
in an atomic beam, and argued that it was miraculous. You might not
"rule out" a miraculous act, but I suspect that you would argue against
it and argue for a continued search for natural mechanisms. The
arguments you would use would be much the same as "functional
integrity." The same goes for the example of galactic formation which I
gave a few weeks ago. Miracles are not ruled out, but neither are they
advocated. An eventual explanation without miracles is judged to be
possible, perhaps probable, and theologically acceptable. This
judgment is made based on "functional integrity," other theological
arguments, and scientific arguments.
So the question we come back to is, are the developments of first life
and biological complexity more like galactic formation, or more like the
miracles of salvation history? And a good question it is.
Loren Haarsma