> The Westminster Confession of Faith appeals to the "light of nature"
> (as well as many arguments from Scripture) to support the contention
> that transubstantiation is incorrect. This use of physical evidence
> to support a less literalistic interpretation seems like a good
> parallel for the appeal to physical evidence in interpreting Genesis
> 1. My only attempt so far at applying this reasoning had an already
> unreceptive audience, so I cannot tell if it is likely to sway others.
This is an interesting analogy. I had not thought of this before
but there is some similarity between transsubstantiation and "apparent
age" arguments for YEC. In fact it might be possible to cast the latter
in Aristotelian form by saying that the substance of creation is ~6000
years old but that its accidents give the appearance of billions of years
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 12:25:11 EDT