Jack, thanks for explaining your view. I don't think the example you have given demonstrates that a study of ordinary providence allows one to understand extraordinary processes. By "process" is literally meant the process. How did the water turn into wine? How did God stop the sun from moving and start it again? How did God make the stars and coalesce the light into them?
In contrast, the example you have given,
We might say, based on our general revelation knowledge, that we're pretty sure both the earth and sun are constantly in motion and that the passage probably means that the sun stood still relative to the position and rotation of the earth. In this example, we didn't just say, "It's a miracle so science can't tell us anything about it." Rather, we made a reasonable adjustment to our reading of the passage based on our scientific study.
1) This is not understanding extraordinary processes by a study of ordinary processes (which is impossible by definition anyway). At best, this is understanding the objects of the extraordinary process better: understanding
what the miracle was better. This corresponds to understanding what water and what wine are better.
2) Strictly speaking, we have not understood the Scripture teaching better by scientific study. The Scriptures say the sun stopped moving. It says nothing about the earth or anything else (well, the moon stopped too). None of that is in the text, so anything that one does further should not be viewed as the teaching of Scripture. The Scriptures teach the sun stopped. One may then try to understand what "the sun stopped" means in terms of a particular scientific model, but this is not understanding the text better: it is taking something from the text and filtering it through a scientific model. It is an abstraction from the text that at best could be used to help connect the world of then to the world of today when explaining the passage or considering the bearing its teaching has on what we know today. Describing this process of abstraction as an "adjustment to our reading of the passage" suggests that scientific study is being used to control the text's teaching and interpretation rather than historical-grammatical exegesis. While
Maxwell was only sorry to see a conjectural hypothesis attached to the teaching of Scripture, I think his comments should be heeded more broadly.
With regards to the Creation period, science cannot do anything more than speculate because of the limited data (which I have shown with regards to starlight). Speculation has its uses, but the goal of science is
knowledge and it is that which will elude it in this area. But a further consideration is that Creation is known by faith. Consider Wilhelmus a Brakel below.**
The concern you have raised about Christians dismissing science is a valid concern. It is also a valid concern that many Christians think too much of science--some ending up consumed by theistic evolutionary ideas. I don't agree that science is "general revelation" (it is not revealed; God reveals himself through nature, not the facts of science; and it is not generally accessible but if one disagrees on this quality of "general revelation," then at best scientific facts reveal something about God), and I don't think attributing some kind of divine authority to its claims is going to help matters (as some do). I think it would be more helpful if Christians viewed it as it is: a philosophical discipline, therefore having its uses but at the end of the day being but the claims of men. If scientific study was viewed within its proper limitations, I agree that Christians could engage in it to a full extent and attribute truth to it in accordance with its limitations (I quote Turretin below***). I will have to leave things there, since I have other stuff I have to do and this is getting more off topic from the thread (and I sincerely was just curious as to what you meant by science understanding extraordinary processes!).
**"God did not create the world from an infinite air mass, neither from indivisible elements, from an eternally formless mass of matter, nor from anything else, whatever name one would wish to attribute to it. This is a pagan fabrication derived from the fundamental principle:
only nothing can come out of nothing. This is true in reference to the finite creature and natural forces, but not as far as the infinite and omnipotent God is concerned. He has brought forth everything out of nothing. The determining factor here is this “nothing,” and not the matter from which things were formed.
The apostle demonstrates this in Heb 11:3, where he states, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Natural reason teaches that by virtue of causal relationships one ultimately must come to God as the original cause of all things. Natural reason, however, cannot understand the “how”; that is, how something can come into existence out of nothing, how God with one word and with one single command has caused everything to come into existence.
All this we accept by faith. By faith we also accept the order described by Moses, in which all things were brought forth." (
Christian's Reasonable Service, p.
269-270)
***"VII. For a thing to be denied by philosophy is different from not being taught by it. We do not deny that various theological mysteries are not taught in philosophy, but it does not follow that they are denied by it because the limits of the two sciences must be kept distinct. The physician does not meddle with geometry, nor the lawyer with natural science. So philosophy should be kept within its proper bounds and not be allowed to thrust its pruning hook into a different field. Therefore, because it says nothing about the Trinity and the incarnation, we must not suppose that it denies these doctrines.
XIII. Although theology teaches many things which philosophy knows not, it does not follow that a thing may be false in philosophy which is true in theology because truth is not at variance with truth, nor is light opposed to light. But care must be taken that philosophical truths be not extended beyond their own sphere and the ordinary powers of nature to those things which are of supernatural revelation or power; that the physical be not confounded with the hyper-physical or human with divine things. For example, it is true in philosophy that a virgin cannot bring forth, that a heavy body is carried downwards, that fire burns matter placed in contact with it, that from nothing, nothing can come--the contraries of which theology maintains. But they are not on this account opposed to each other because these things are spoken of in different relations.... In philosophy, they are denied with reference to the laws of nature, but in theology they are affirmed with reference to divine omnipotence and supernaturally." (
Institutes First Topic, Thirteenth Question)
