Re: Biblical vs. Scientific interpretation, (was: Re: Why ICR "wins"

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:12:32 -0500 (EST)

At 09:57 AM 1/26/98 -0600, R. Joel Duff wrote:
>>At 04:03 PM 1/23/98 -0500, Jan de Koning wrote:
>>
>>Dear Jan,
>>
>>I just have a simple question, Do those who believe in evolution as a
>>scientific theory also believe that Christ turned water into wine? If so,
>>what is the scientific basis for that fact.
>
>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

Dear Joel,

I do not see any difference between establishing the age of the wine and
that of any other material object. I am not defending any view of creation.
I am trying to point out the drastic difference between historical science
and a science like physics--experimental/theoretical.

Take care,

Moorad