On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:57:18 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>ABSTRACT: I give a review of theological reasons for favoring "natural
>processes" over "supernatural intervention" in biological history.
[continued]
[...]
LH>1. A self-consistent hermeneutics of Genesis 1 implies that God
used
>similar methods to form both the physical structures and the biological
>structures of creation.
LH>We have good reason to believe that God used natural processes over
>billions of years, without detectable supernatural intervention, to create
>the sun, moon, stars, the earth's land, ocean, and atmosphere.
There is probably no way we could, from this distance, detect
"supernatural intervention" in the case of the creation of "sun, moon,
stars, the earth's
land, ocean, and atmosphere". Hugh Ross has shown that the universe
and
Earth-moon system is incredibly fine-tuned to support life on Earth.
He
argues (on his web page http://www. dnai.com/~westley) that the
capture
of so large a moon, relative to the size of the Earth, is almost
impossible to arrange without an incredible degree of fine-tuning.
Besides, the use of "natural processes" does not invalidate
"supernatural intervention". Jesus used his saliva to heal (Mk 7:33;
8:23) and even
saliva and mud (Jn 9:6). It is a hangover from Sunday-school theology
to imagine that God creates only by snapping His fingers and "poof"!
something appears out of nothing.
LH>It is
>therefore consistent hermeneutically to hypothesize that God also used
>natural processes in biological history. Given our natural-processes
>interpretation of "... let dry ground appear," it seems arbritrary to
>interpret, "Let the earth bring forth..." as REQUIRING detectable
>supernatural intervention for the formation of first life, higher taxa,
>and novel features.
Requiring that "supernatural intervention" is "detectable" is raising
the stakes unnecessarily. See above.
I accept wholeheartedly that the picture in (Gn 1:11,20, 24) is of
God making out of pre-existing natural materials. But that does not
thereby rule out that it was an *initial* Divine "supernatural
intervention".
The picture in Gn 1 is of God *commanding* "Let the earth bring
forth..." vegetation (Gn 1:11); and animal life (Gn 1:20, 24). It is
the
same "And God said..." that is used in Gn 1:3 "And God said, Let
there be light: and there was light". This indicates, at the very
least *supernatural intervention* in what naturally existed at that
point.
Whether God used intermediate secondary natural processes is
irrelevant.
Gn 2:7 indicates that God made man out of pre-existing materials
"the dust of the ground", but that does not mean it was not a
ultimately a "supernatural intervention".
If you interpret "Let the earth bring forth..." (Gn 1:11, 20, 24) as
not
requiring supernatural intervention, then to be consistent you should
not
require it anywhere else God issues a command and then makes or does
something through intermediate processes. If you followed through this
interpretation consistently I suggest you would end up
de-miracle-ising
the Bible and end up with something close to Deism.
[continued]
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------