LH>Well, Paul, you've goaded me into a long-winded response. :-)
Really, I thought it was very concise, especially...
LH>So, if you ask me how I think the supernatural truths of "Christ holding
LH>all things together" and "reconciling all things to himself" might, to a
LH>limited extent, be reflected in the natural world (and how this might
LH>affect our discussion of origins), I would respond with A1, A2, A3, A4,
LH>A5, B6, and possibly B7. I think they have good support, both
LH>scripturally and (where appropriate) observationally. And of course, I'm
LH>open to new ideas. If someone suggests adding C8, C9, C10, C11, and/or
LH>D12, I would say that they are worth considering, but they seem to lack
LH>the support needed for inclusion. (C8 and C9 can be argued from
LH>scripture, but they do not _necessarily_ follow from scripture. And if
LH>someone proposes a theological idea which should have observable
LH>consequences, surely it's prudent to test those observations!)
We agree that B7, C8, C9, C10, and D12 are the most elusive. While we
all personally experience, observe, and enjoy the effects of God's good
supernatural intervention, I feel that we still do not have a firm
understanding of the supernatural effects of sin.
These have oft been expressed theologically, the testing of them assumes
that there would be theological agreement. For example, many Christian
theologians believe that death did not exist before man's fall. Others
believe that it did. Of course we can never observe this to find the
correct answer, only interpret the evidence found. But in our
interpretation we must necessarily rely upon our theological
presuppositions and we inherently arrive at different conclusions.
An alternate tact would be to presuppose that a purely scientific
interpretation will give the correct answer. Here we run into problems
in that the scientific interpretation of the evidence must also rely
upon unprovable assumptions.
Thus we are left with reason. But reason necessarily assumes that fallen
man is capable of independently arriving at truth. So we are left with a
quandary... how to settle the remaining areas of disagreement.
LH>I certainly agree that science alone (measurement, observational, or
LH>historical science) is insufficient to synthesize the interpretation of
LH>the natural with the supernatural. A variety of disciplines, including
LH>philosophy and theology, are needed.
Perhaps one area to focus upon would be whether or not we can determine
a change in Creation before or after the presence of man. If we can
agree that, yes, man's fall unleashed destructive forces on all of
Creation, should we not be able to observe evidence of a change in some
or many processes before and after that event? Can the evidence of
destructive forces help us to determine man's fall historically, with
the aid of Scripture and the other disciplines?
Food for thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
Oakland, Maryland
to: IN:lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu