Bill Powers 2008-06-13 2
From Summa Bergania
Date: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:37 am
From: David Bergan
To: Bill Powers
Subject: Re: My take on evolution
Hi Bill,
If I understand your reply correctly, you are suggesting to me that my tacit approval of evolution should lead me to serious reservations about every miracle recorded in the Bible. I guess I don't see the connection...
The only grounds (I'm aware of) for coming to that conclusion rests on one of two sweeping generalizations:
1) That all valid knowledge is only obtained through methodological naturalism.
2) Chronological Snobbery - the idea that the ancients were wrong simply because they were ancient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery
For instance, see this page for someone who applies C.S. to Bultmann.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/01/bultmanns-blatant-chronological_30.html
For as much as science tries to avoid the miraculous, isn't it
interesting that it seems to have confirmed the biggest miraculous
event possible? What else is the big bang but the realization that at
one point there was nothing but empty, dark, vacuum-space... and then
a second later there was enough matter for 80 billion galaxies filled
with 3 x 10^22 stars. It went from absolute emptiness to having
enough energy for 10^80 atoms in one Planck time. How is that not a
miracle? And if you swallow that camel, why strain out gnats like the
crossing of the Red Sea? Anyone who can create 10^80 atoms in a
fraction of a picosecond, can move a few gallons of water.
Furthermore, I don't think science really has anything against the
Incarnation. 1st century Jews were not deluded people. The reason
Joseph was considering breaking up with Mary when she was found
pregnant, was because he knew exactly how a girl gets pregnant.
Science hasn't enlightened us one inch on that topic. It was contrary
to their idea of the laws of nature as much as it is contrary to our
idea of the laws of nature... which is precisely why we (and they)
call it a miracle.
And every miracle attributed in the Bible (past early Genesis) can be seen like this: The laws of nature describe how the universe acts in general terms, but miracles are always singular events that violate the general rules. The scientific method is powerless in dealing with miracles, because the scientific method is aiming at providing the rules. Miracles are one-off exceptions that can't be repeated or falsified. It's the one time in 100 billion where a girl gets pregnant without contacting semen. How can science say anything except that that one pregnancy didn't follow the rule? (To which theologians can respond... "We know.")
Anyway, that's how I see it, Bill. What exactly is causing your doubts?
Kind regards,
David
PS I hadn't heard that Karl Barth disbelieved miracles. I'm quite
sure he believed in the Incarnation, anyway.
