miracles as smokescreen

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:32:55 -0400

Arguments for the kenotic character of divine action &/or the functional
integrity of creation (which I think are 2 sides of the same coin) are often met
with the challenge "Are you denying miracles" from proponents of things like ID.
I would like to suggest (in fact, to demonstrate) that this challenge has no
proper theological basis, & in fact is just an excuse for holding on to juvenile
theology.
Many of the biblical miracles can be understood as divine action through
natural processes of varying degrees of rarity, & I think in general that that's a
good place to start. One can, however, certainly argue that some of these miracles
cannot be so understood, & should be thought of as being beyond the possibilities
of natural processes. While I don't think we should rush to conclude that any
particular miracle is in that category, I also don't rule out the possibility.
Why do Christians take the possibility of miracles seriously?
1) The Bible speaks about them.
2) They may serve to validate the call of a prophet or his/her message.
3) A very important case of 2 is the _sign_ function of miracles, especially
in the Fourth Gospel. The gospel miracles point to the identity of Jesus with
God who is working all the time through natural processes to provide food,
heal, &c. (Cf. Lewis's "Miracles of the Old Creation" in _Miracles_.)
4) They point toward the inbreaking of the new creation. (Cf. Lewis' "Miracles
of the New Creation.")
The list isn't exhaustive but those are the important reasons.
NONE OF THESE APPLY TO THE CREATION OF LIFE, SPECIATION, &C - i.e., to all
those things that IDers want to make miraculous.
The Bible does not speak of God's initial creation of life as "miraculous"
but (Genesis 1) as mediated through the waters and the earth which God has created.
The creation of life does not validate anyone's call. It is not a sign pointing to
the unique identity of Jesus: In fact he identifies himself as the Son of the One who
is continually working (John 5:17). & it is original creation, not new creation.
I.e., there is no biblical or other good theological reason to argue that the
origin of life was due to God's direct & unmediated action. "Only God can make a tree"
may be cute poetry but it's lousy theology.

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/