Moorad,
I am sure Jan will have a more eloquent reponse than I. I wanted to say
something very similar to this quote below, recently, but a friend of
mine said this much more eloquently elsewhere so I will just quote him. I
thought this was a good description of the question of how we balance
Scriptural interpretations with scientific interpretations. In the water
changing to wine case I think there is much less question as to how we must
interpret the Scripture than in the case of origins. Also, I would note
that we have discussed this water and wine question numerous times recently
and adressed this very issue. On with the quote:
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
<begin quote>
"But suppose for a moment that our interpretation of Scripture is
ambiguous--that, exegetically speaking, comparing Scripture with
Scripture, allowing our presuppositions to be called into question, there
is still more than one way reasonably to interpret Genesis 1. I, in
fact, think this is our actual situation.
Let us suppose further, for the sake of argument, that, all things being
equal, the interpretation of Genesis in terms of six ordinary days of
creation around 6000 years ago is somewhat more likely than any other
interpretation--including one which sees the days as a sequential
ordering of God's creative acts of establishing a covenant order to the
cosmos over a period of indeterminate length. That is to say, the
interpretation of Scripture in terms of a young earth is more aesthetically
satisfying, accounts for all the biblical data with the least amount of
hermeneutical "tweaking", provides the most coherent reading of the whole
of Scripture, and so on.
On the other hand, we have a great deal of historical and scientific data
regarding decay rates, sedimentation, astronomical observations,
racezimation, genetic mutation, paleontology, and so on. We can
interpret all of this data in terms of different presuppositions. We can
interpret it in terms of the assumption a 6000 year old earth and give all
the data a coherent reading, but only through the addition of a
great number of assumptions regarding the past rapid change of various
physico-chemical rates, the "appearance" of age, the course of past
geological formation, and so on. We can also interpet it without the
assumption of a 6000 year old earth, assuming that many processes have
gone on in the past even as they continue now, that we have a
indeterminate amount of time into which to fit the data, and so on.
Let us say that the interpretation of the data of natural revelation in
terms of an old earth is more likely. That is, it is more aesthetically
satisfying, account for all the natural data with the least amount of
scientific "tweaking", provides the most coherent reading of the whole of
the scientific and historical data, and so on. In short, we apply the
same hermeneutical standards to natural revelation as to special
revelation.
Now we find ourselves in the following position. We have at least two
interpretations of Scripture of which one (young earth) is more likely
than another (a earth of indeterminate age). We also have at least two
interpretations of natural revelation of which one (very old earth) is
more like than another (young earth).
My question for you is this: How do the probabilities of the Scriptural
interpretations affect the probabilities of the scientific
interpretations and vice versa?
It seems that this is the problem that we are grappling with here.
<end quote>
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Scientifically I have no problem saying that the water was changed to wine
in an extraordinary sence because I believe the clear teaching of the Word
requires this belief. In the case of evolution I think the waters are more
muddy with respect to the intepretations of Scipture so a direct comparison
of the two is not completely justified.
MTC (my two cents)
Joel
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
,-~~-.___.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: duff@siu.edu \_/-, ,----'
or virkotto@intrnet.net ==== //
or nickrent-lab@siu.edu / \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto/joelduff.htm
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/