>Evolutionary creationism is not an attempt to "de-miraclize the Bible."
>The entire concern is focused on one or two chapters. Specifically, the
>issue is whether the mechanisms of "Let the land produce..." more
>resembles "... your heavenly Father feeds them," or "Lazarus, come out."
and
>I don't think the text of Genesis 1 implies "Let the earth bring forth..."
>is any more miraculous or less naturalistic than "... let dry land
>appear."
Well put. However, I'm not sure your reverent attitude towards Scripture
characterizes the larger TE movement. Much of the TE movement is associated
with (in my view) a far too liberal Christianity. I guess I used the faulty
argument of guilt by association, but it's hard to put out of my mind.
>Here's the list of "essential miracles," as I see them:
>
>1) The fact that anything exists at all. Some would call that _de_novo_
>creation and associate that with the "Big Bang." I would also include the
>CONTINUED existence of the universe.
I agree on the de novo creation. Heb. 11:3 says, "By faith we understand
that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not
made out of what was visible." Matter and energy cannot arise from
non-matter and non-energy by any mechanism that I am aware of. Neither are
they eternal. So their existence implies a miracle was done sometime in the
past.
On the CONTINUED existence of the universe, are you saying that, on the
basis of science we can't explain why things keep existing? I agree that "He
holds all things together", but I have always put this in the category of
"... your heavenly father feeds them." (i.e. Providence).
>2) God's revelatory acts towards developing humans which affected the
>direction our development. (Personally, I would include in this
>chategory: aspects of our personality, moral sense, religious sense, and
>some consequences of human original sin, including the curse. Others may
>choose different specifics.)
Agreed.
>Those are two cases where, in your words, "materialistic causes are
>insufficient to explain the effect." I'm open to the possibility of more
>such miracles as a part of origins, but I await a convincing hermeneutical
>or scientific argument.
So you're in philosophical agreement with Phil Johnson? The only difference
being that what PJ sees as convincing, you don't?
Shouldn't the historical interpretations of the church also bear some weight
in this matter? We know that the church has been questioning whether the
days of Genesis 1 are 24 hour days from the very beginning. However, I am
not aware of any controversy over the de novo creation of Adam and Eve until
very recent times. This leads me to be fairly open-minded on how to
interpret Gen. 1, (I like the Ps. 104 is a verse by verse commentary
approach) but makes me reluctant to accept the TE view of Gen. 2 which
allows humans to have animal ancestors.
>(For example, on the basis of Genesis 2, many
>TE's would include a third essential miracle: the physical development of
>humans.)
I think it's hard to say that Gen. 2:7 "The Lord God formed the man from the
dust of the ground..." and Gen. 2:22 "Then the Lord God made a woman from
the rib he had taken out of the man..." are to be taken in the sense of "...
your heavenly father feeds them."
>If we're going to take any items from Genesis 1 and add them to this list,
>let's specify our criteria for determining which ones....
Here's an addition I want to make:
In Gen. 1, the phrase "according to their kinds" appears a number of times.
Its use seems more consistent with a PC or a YEC view that a TE view.
Our criteria will be:
1. Does a PC or YEC interpretation of this phrase fit the text better than a
TE interpretation? Does it have any meaning whatsoever from a TE perspective?
2. Which interpretation does science favor?
3. What has the church historically done with this phrase? Argued it? or
understood it in terms of the fixity of species (or kinds - however broad
the term is)?
Criteria (1) and (2) will be debated for a long time to come. And I'm
interested in this debate. However, (3) should be easily answered. As far as
I know, (3) is decisively in favor of PCs or YECs. Am I wrong about this?
(PLEASE, if anyone wants to appeal to Augustine on this, quote the relevant
passage).
Jim
Jim Blake
Associate Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843