Re: Panda's from 1995

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 12:20:56 EST

Let's consider what Mr. Natural Theology, Thomas Aquinas, thinks about this.
Acquinas believed that the so-called theistic proofs were valid -- including
the telelogical proof which is in view with ID. Yet, he said the following
concerning the limitations of natural theology in Contra Gentiles:

 The words of the above text are adapted to our purpose: for whereas in the
> previous books we have spoken of divine things according as natural reason
> can arrive through creatures to the knowledge of them, -- but that
> imperfectly, according to the limitations of the author's capacity, so that
> we can say with Job: *Lo, these things that have been said are but a part
> of his ways*; it remains now to treat of truths divinely revealed for our
> belief, truths transcending human understanding. And the words of the text
> are a guide to our procedure in this matter. As we have scarce heard the
> truth in the statements of Holy Scripture, those being as it were one little
> drop coming down to us, and no man in this life can look upon the thunder of
> his greatness, our method will be as follows. Taking as first principles the
> statements of Holy Scripture, we will endeavour to penetrate their hidden
> meaning to the best of our ability, without presuming to claim perfect
> knowledge of the matter. Our proofs will rest on the authority of Holy
> Scripture, not on natural reason: still it will be our duty to show that our
> assertions are not contrary to natural reason, and thereby defend them
> against the assaults of unbelievers. And since natural reason ascends by
> creatures to the knowledge of God, while the knowledge of faith descends by
> divine revelation from God to us, and it is the same way up and down, we
> must proceed in these matters of supra-rational belief by the same way in
> which we proceeded in our rational enquiries concerning God. Thus we shall
> treat first of the supra-rational truths that are proposed for our belief
> concerning God Himself, as the confession of the Trinity [Chapp. I - XXVI:
> cf. I, Chap. IX <http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_9.htm>:
> this answers to Book I]. Secondly, of the supra-rational works done by
> God, as the work of the Incarnation and its consequences [Chapp. XXVII -
> LXXVIII: answering to Book II]. Thirdly, of the supra-rational events
> expected at the end of human history, as the resurrection and glorification
> of bodies, the everlasting bliss of souls, and events therewith connected
> [Chapp. LXXIX - XCVII: answering to Book III]. [emphasis mine]

So, what Moorad is asking is in the supra-rational. That is, not irrational
in that it goes against reason nor rational in that they can be apprehended
via natural theology. Science cannot go as far as natural theology.
Therefore, if natural theology cannot answer the question then a forteriori
science cannot either.

If we can suggest that the proponents of ID are in a sense the sons and
daughters of Aquinas -- a point I believe can easily be made -- then we can
see that Moorad's question is invalid. Rather, we should ask: As a
supra-rational truth does what Kenneth Miller believe concerning evolution
contradict the truth of the death and resurrection of our Lord and the
salvation of His people? Since it does not, we are finished with the matter.

[Note: I am arguing a forteriori throughout this. I am not suggesting that
Aquinas' natural theology necessarily be adopted. Rather, I am using the
most extreme case to show that this is a tempest in a teapot.]

On 11/12/05, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>
> "Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but
> for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him
> who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because
> of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification." Romans
> 4:23-25.
>
> Evolutionary theory is a purely scientific theory. As such, it says
> nothing about our transgressions and our justification. I know we Christians
> can reconcile the science and the Word of God but I wonder which choice is
> the closest to the truth.
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Sat 11/12/2005 8:00 AM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Panda's from 1995
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:19 AM
> Subject: RE: Panda's from 1995
>
>
> > How do the death and resurrection of Jesus and its significance for us
> fit
> > into that evolutionary scheme?
>
> Romans 4:23-25 answer your question. I'm surprised you didn't know this!
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 12 12:22:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 12:22:30 EST