Intelligent Design theistic evolution

Thought for the day: Wayne Rossiter on science, miracles, or a blend of both

Spread the love

From Wayne Rossiter, at Shadow of Oz:

I simply reject this notion that the entire discussion can be cast in the framework of what is and what is not science, or what science can and cannot do. If a TEist believes in a supernatural Jesus, they’re not anti-science. But neither is a Christian who believes that angels fought alongside Elisha. Such claims are not rejections of the fundamental laws and mechanics of nature. They are claims that our history is more than this. To say that there are things science cannot explain is not to say that science is to be rejected. What if it’s not a war between science and faith, but a shared partnership between the natural and supernatural? What if history is explained by both the background noise of the natural system and the supernatural punctuations (acts) of miraculous events? That is, science is true as far as it goes, but is insufficient to explain history. What if we stop asking what is scientific, and start asking about what is historically and presently real? More.

Note: Angels fighting alongside Elisha?

So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the LORD opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Belisha. 2 Kings 6: 16–17

See also: BioLogos: Wayne Rossiter’s successful prediction of theistic evolution’s attack on fine-tuning

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Thought for the day: Wayne Rossiter on science, miracles, or a blend of both

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Maybe the division between natural and supernatural is a misconception. Maybe there is only that which is known and understood – to some extent – and that which isn’t. Yet.

  2. 2
    JDH says:

    Seversky – I really have a problem with your answer. I don’t think you really thought out clearly what you meant.

    1. What does it mean for a particular phenomena to be “known and understood”. It means that some “mind” has an ability to explain the cause and effect of it. This of course depends on how deep you demand your explanation to go. There are plenty of things which are “natural” which are not really understood. Number one is gravity. We certainly can compute that masses have a 1/(r^2) attraction to each other, and that seems to hold for objects we observe here. But although we have models for this, I would not say we “understand” gravity. We can compute the expected force, but this is not understanding.

    2. Likewise what is electronic charge? Do we really understand what generates an electric charge?

    3. Please also understand that it is my opinion that your materialistic assumption you have expressed in other posts makes it impossible for there to be a mind which knows and understands. Because any materialistic mind could not make its own evaluations and choices, but must be completely subject to chemistry. It is perhaps a bit ironic that the reality is (in my opinion) that under materialism absolutely nothing can actually be known and understood.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    In the sense that the fundamental particles have a non-local dimension, yes, though everything is supernatural (apart from considerations of the axiomatically-divine nature of all of creation), rather than natural.

    Or, to put it another way, the natural is supernatural, as is indicated by the ultimate non-locality of all matter. The very Singularity has to be supernatural, doesn’t it ? Sorry about letting God ‘get a foot in the door’.

Leave a Reply