>... if we have good Biblical grounds to expect a discontinuity
>(eg. the origin of life, the origin of humans, etc), then it is
>surely reasonable to see the lack of naturalistic explanations as
>pointing to a supernatural explanation?
To which Steve Clark replied (in part),
>I submit that the conclusion you come
>to in your statement above, reflects a bias of supernaturalism. I also
>remind you that your conclusion here is exactly the opposite of what
>Augustine, Basil and Acquinas concluded.
Did Augustine say that when the Bible suggests something is a miracle, and
we can't find a naturalistic explanation for it, then it is unreasonable for
us to think it might be a miracle?
I haven't read Basil or Acquinas, but I have waded through a lot of
Augustine. It's true that he said many things that are unfriendly to the YEC
framework and mindset. However, I have never read anything remotely like
what you are attributing to him here. Perhaps a reference is in order. You
cannot deny the truth of SJ's if-then statement above, unless you don't
believe in miracles.
Perhaps what you meant is that there are no good Biblical grounds to expect
a discontinuity in the origin of life and humans? (So the *if* part of SJ's
statement never gets off the ground). This seems far-fetched and I haven't
seen Augustine state this. I wouldn't be totally surprised if he said
somewhere that the best interpretation of Scripture is one of continuity in
the origin of life and man, although I haven't seen such a statement. I
would like to see a quote from him to this effect if anyone's got one.
Steve Clark also said:
>The attempt to provide a naturalistic
>explanation for the origin of life, etc is fraught with all the potential
>weaknesses that accompany human efforts. But then, biblical interpretation
>is also a human endeavor and also is fraught with human limitations. In
>both cases, the way human limitations affect knowledge need to be
>considered. I keep pointing to the Galileo affair as an example that having
>"good Biblical grounds" for a certain version of nature, is not a guarantee
>that one has truthful knowledge.
The Galileo affair is interesting and relevant. But, is it really a strong
parallel situation to the evolution affair of today? It seems to me that
accepting an interpretation of Scripture that matches Galileo's science is
*very* easy compared to accepting an interpretation of Scripture that has a
lack of miracles in the creation of life and man.
Are there any other case studies where the church has really had to invent
new interpretations of Scripture, because the observable facts just didn't
line up with the existing ones?
Jim
Jim Blake
Associate Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843