"as even some of your own poets have said" (Acts 17:28). Many passages use
imagery from surrounding pagan cultures, turning them to God's glory.
Although there is real danger, if one starts to think God is like the pagan
gods (much of what is condemned in Hosea, for example), it is also possible
for pagans to have a good insight or to hit on useful imagery. One of the
most famous examples is the Logos of John's writings, which was a concept
existing in both Jewish and Greek thought but adapted and elevated in the
Gospel.
>VJ > Science, of course, knows nothing of the supernatural. How,
>therefore, can it make conclusive statements about physical reality?
It depends on what you mean by conclusive. Science depends on the
assumptions that we can interact with the physical world and that it
behaves in consistent ways. Accepting these assumptions, it can make
rather good statements about how things will behave. Ultimately, why it
behaves that way instead of some other way is outside the domain of
science. (Why is the sky blue? Because that is the wavelength best
scattered. Why are the laws of physics such that that wavelength is best
scattered? Because God made them that way.) Also, there are always the
caveats of "to the best of our knowledge" and "unless some factor, not
taken into account, affects things". Science is a human endeavor, and is
constantly seeking a better approximation of reality, but there is always
the possibility of a new discovery changing our picture. Supernatural
intervention would be an example of a factor not taken into account.
Although it should be acknowledged as a possibility, God is free to do
anything in keeping with His character and thus hard to predict in detail
of action though easy to predict as far as motive goes.
>With regard to miracle, to agree that 'God did it' should suffice.
>Science can have nothing to add to the matter!
Yes; the question is whether the Bible asserts that miracles were involved
within the creation process. Also, there is the question of whether claims
of something being a miracle are true. Science can be helpful in testing
this. For example, the combined facts of innumerable observations that
people stay dead after they die, that crucifixion kills people, and that
many people observed Christ alive again after His death supports the
conclusion that a miracle occurred. The inability of "psychics" to
accurately predict things, when tested, supports the conclusion that they
are frauds. The fact that the Jordan, on rare occasions, has been stopped
as a result of a landslide, allowing dry crossing, suggests that God may
have used this means in enabling crossing for the invasion of Canaan and
Elijah and Elisha going past. However, as a rather rare phenomenon, it is
implausible that they would have known that the water would be cut off at
just the right time (or that it would have been cut off at the right time)
unless they had inside information from the One who is sovereign over wind,
waves, and rocks. People didn't just stand around whacking the river with
a cloak for years until they could cross.
>VJ > I hope you will agree that it cannot be pretended that the use of
>science in a 'forensic' capacity (as in the interpretion of the
>geological record, for example) is able to yield firm conclusions.
>Possibilities, perhaps, but not proofs!
No, I will not. I am a geologist. I will agree that some conclusions are
less definite than others. However, there is a gradation, not a
qualitative difference, between such and direct experimentation. If I mix
two chemicals in a test tube and observe the results, I am reconstructing
what happened when they interacted, and am also probably accepting evidence
of past experiments.
If I find a rock that shows no traces of alteration, and determine that it
contains calcium, I think I have proved that calcium was present when the
rock formed. If I find a certain kind of fossil in it, and the same kind
in another rock, I think it probably formed about the same time, but I
would need more evidence such as studies on other rocks as to whether this
kind of fossil is found only in a few layers or through a wide range.
Other similarities between the rocks such as additional fossils, isotopic
stratigraphy, etc. would strenghten the conclusion. If there were enough
lines of evidence (depending also on how good any line of evidence was), I
would conclude that the relative age was determined with confidence.
>GA > The literal truth of Genesis' message of the creation is not in
>question; only the wooden interpretation of the details. Does Jesus
>address these details?
>
>VJ > Did he have any need to? The only reason for our discussing them
>now is the glaring mismatch re the order in which things were done. This
>problem won't go away, you know! If God really created by evolutionary
>means, then why should he get things wrong in relating the happenings of
>days 5 and 6?
He did not get things wrong, if one assumes that He did not mean to imply a
sequence in the first place.
David C.