Re: Signs of Scientism

Ok, but all of this has gotten lost in too many specifics about particular
miracles recorded in the Bible. The basic principle is this: miracles that
impact on the physical world imply physical evidence that something unusual
has occurred. There was water; now suddenly there is wine people can taste
and enjoy. There was a dead man; now suddenly people can touch him and talk
to him. If -- a big, huge if that I'm not necessarily advocating -- God
separately created some kinds of life at different points in history,
outside of or above or through an accellerated common descent, it seems to
me there should be no reason in principle that we'd be humanly incapable of
observing that something unusual happened when sifting the ex post
evidence. The "a supernatural being can do everything and anything so
there's no way we could distinguish the supernatural from the natural"
argument makes no sense to me if I adopt an epistemology that allows for an
orderly God who sometimes causes observable "miracles" to happen.

There are other arguments against ID that are based on what we actually
observe in the data (whether what we know about common descent really
precludes such divine insertions) as well as theological arguments about
whether we should expect such "punctuated creation" based on the nature of
God's providence and the purposes of Biblical miracles. But, I don't see
the epistemological arguments against ID as valid unless one assumes an
epistemology that excludes any human knowledge of miracles.

On 1/20/06, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Actually I was the one who wrote that, and I should have specified that my
> example implies time travel: Suppose we could travel through time and
> found
> ourselves at the house in Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine,
> immediately following the wedding (but after everyone who knew what had
> happened had left)
>
> David and others are of course quite correct that there were no direct
> witnesses to the resurrection. However, the women and later several of the
> disciples came to the empty tomb fairly soon after it had happened, and
> they
> knew that Jesus had been dead, had been placed in the tomb, and the stone
> rolled over the entrance. And they met Jesus Himself. Pretty strong
> evidence.
>
> --- Tjalle T Vandergraaf <ttveiv@mts.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know that there were no bottles at that time and that amphorae
> were
> > not intended for long-term storage (but they kept the contents
> cool). My
> > response, somewhat tongue in cheek) was to David who wrote, "Suppose for
> > example we ome to the house where the wedding at Cana was held and find
> some
> > of the wine that Jesus made from water. I presume it would look, smell
> and
> > taste like any other wine -- no discernable difference from ordinary
> wine."
> > To me, this whole issue is a moot point: if we were to find any wine in
> > 2006, we would doubt its authenticity; if we had been around in ~30 AD
> we
> > would not have had the equipment to test the wine other than to taste
> it.
> > The Biblical record shows that the wine passed the taste test. Good
> enough
> > for me! Whether one believes that the molecular structure of the
> various
> > components in that wine passed muster (I believe they did) or whether
> one
> > believes that this was a case of wishful thinking and/or mass delusion
> (I
> > don't think so), the main point is that the result showed the power of
> Jesus
> > and that he is the Christ.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Resurrection is a totally different miracle; not that it was more
> > difficult for God to raise Jesus than to turn water into wine, but
> because
> > it is intrinsic to our salvation [1 Cor. 15]. The evidence of the
> > Resurrection was good enough for the disciples.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck Vandergraaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:49 PM
> > To: ttveiv@mts.net
> > Cc: williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com; dopderbeck@gmail.com; gmurphy@raex.com
> ;
> > pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism
> >
> >
> >
> > Seems to me this confuses what might be discovered now and what might
> have
> > been available to someone at the time. But there were no bottled wines
> two
> > millennia ago. Scripture talks of wineskins, and archeologists have
> > discovered amphorae used to ship wine. Both are too porous to preserve
> > liquid for a great length of time. Consequently all we can possibly have
> is
> > the record in John 2. So if anyone offers you a bottle of wine from that
> > made at Cana, have him arrested for fraud.
> >
> >
> >
> > What about at the time? One could interview the MC, who would probably
> only
> > know that they were running short of wine and then had plenty of better
> > quality. But he'd likely be very confused that the wine was in the water
> > containers rather than in skins, with no skins around to account for the
> > ~300 liters of wine--at least six skins' worth. One could interview the
> > servants who filled the containers with water and took out wine. One
> could
> > check around town to find out how many wineskins members of the family
> had
> > purchased, each perhaps holding 55 liters (that's litres for our British
> > friends like Michael), and how many had been consumed at various times
> > during the festivities.
> >
> >
> >
> > As for the resurrection, when Paul wrote his noted chapter, there were
> those
> > who had been in Jerusalem at the time and could have refuted him. There
> was
> > the effect on the followers of Jesus, scared and hiding to fearlessly
> > proclaiming--even willing to die rather than recanting. They sure
> persuaded
> > a lot of people. This is not proof, but clearly evidence.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:52:09 -0600 "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <
> ttveiv@mts.net>
> > writes:
> >
> > As to the wine at Cana, if wine were found this year, believers would
> claim
> > that this was evidence of the power of Christ. Non-believers and
> sceptics
> > would argue that somebody had fiddled with the evidence. (what
> protocols
> > were used to preserve the sample and what is the effect of aging on
> wine?)
> > If the wine had been sealed in bottles with an authorized signature,
> there
> > would be a line up of tasters and, if it still tasted like good wine,
> there
> > would be demands for C-14 and O isotope ratio testing. Remember the
> fuss
> > over the Shroud of Turin.
> >
> >
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Received on Fri Jan 20 09:18:29 2006