> GM>Why is it that too often the assumption is that if you believe in
> >evolution you can't believe in miracles?
>
> I never said that. But on the other hand, you do seem to go out of
> your way to minimise God's direct involvement in the natural world?
1. To quote D. Wilcox (again), "Anyone who is a fully biblical theist must
consider ordinary processes controlled by natural law to be as completely
and deliberately the wonderful acts of God as any miracle, equally
contingent upon his free and unhindered will."
2. There ARE times when it is very appropriate to "minimize (the
hypothesis of) God's supernatural involvement in the natural world."
See below.
> >Stephen wrote:
> SJ>Again my question is...if God followed this pattern of direct intervention
> >in human history, against a background of normal historical process, why
> >could He not have intervened in biological history, against a background of
> >normal biological process?
>
> GM>He could have. I just don't think the evidence supports such a view.
>
> What "evidence" is that exactly?
>
> If this "evidence" is just naturalistic reconstructions of history, could not
> the same "evidence" also apply to: 1. the origin of life; 2. the origin of
> man; 3. the Exodus; 4. the resurrection of Jesus? If not, why not?
Do you object to a "naturalistic reconstruction" of the following:
A. The assumption that there is as-yet-unobserved mass in the galaxy to
account for the angular velocity of objects on its rim?
B. The assumption that there is some as-yet-unknown natural law or natural
process to account for the "missing" solar neutrinos?
C. The assumption that every-day biological development from zygote to
multi-celled organism is controlled by as-yet-poorly-known biological
mechanisms?
You see, there ARE times when it is appropriate for Christians to propose
a "naturalistic reconstruction" of events, even when some of the natural
mechanisms are unknown. The angular velocity IS evidence of "dark
matter." The "missing" solar neutrinos ARE evidence for an
as-yet-unobserved physical process such as "neutrino oscillations." The
observed continuity of zygotic development IS evidence for a "purely
naturalistic" developmental program.
By what criteria should Christians decide when a
"naturalistic reconstruction" is (theologically) warranted, and when it is
not? We both agree that [3] the Exodus and the [4] resurrection of Jesus
require God's supernatural activity. The recorded testimony of witnesses
makes this clear; and the Bible clearly teaches that these events are in
large part meaningful precisely BECAUSE they are supernatural events.
Instances of God's special revelation -- by necessity a supernatural event
-- must surely have played an important role at some points in [2] the
origin of humans.
We also both agree, I presume, that [A], [B], and [C] above are examples
of APPROPRIATE "naturalistic reconstructions."
I have already written, in other posts, why I think a naturalistic
reconstruction is theologically warranted for the origins of life and the
developmental history of plants and animals, so I won't repeat myself
here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Until you stalk and overrun, you can't devour anyone."| Loren Haarsma
--a tiger aphormism by Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu