Some there are who presume so far on their wits that they think themselves capable of measuring the whole nature of things by their intellect, in that they esteem all things true which they see, and false which they see not. Accordingly, in order that man’s mind might be freed from this presumption, and seek the truth humbly, it was necessary that certain things far surpassing his intellect should be proposed to man by God.
—St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), Summa Contra Gentiles [1264]
[Depiction of St. Thomas Aquinas from the Demidoff Altarpiece by Carlo Crivelli]
So how does non-naturalistic thinking fit in with evolution? At what point in the process does it switch from being naturalistic to non-naturalistic? The reason I ask is that evolutionists would assume that _any_ non-naturalistic part of history is just as unscientific as Creationism, and therefore I don’t understand the impetus for holding to “evolution” on the one hand, but “non-naturalism” on the other. It seems to me a non-sequiter.
Jonathan,
Without belaboring the point, there is no moment at which evolution switches from being naturalistic to non-naturalistic. It is my view that cosmological and biological evolution is purely naturalistic. The origin of the cosmos, however, is an entirely different matter. It is supernaturalistic. Science cannot answer that question now and I don’t believe it ever can; thus, possible answers to the question “What caused the Big Bang?” reside in the realm of religion and philosophy.
However, you make a good point that supernatural acts, such as those mentioned in the New Testament (e.g., Jesus turning water into wine, resurrection of dead people, the feeding of the multitude, etc.), are in fact non-scientific, or non-naturalistic. How miracles such as these are accomplished are indeed non-scientific. We know that water cannot just change into wine by virtue of the fact that in all of human history there has never been an observed instance of this occurring naturally. Miracles such as these cannot be explained away through natural process and are, by definition, supernatural. However, not all redemptive events require supernatural explanations. For example, the parting of the Red Sea might just have a natural explanation (Ex 14:21), i.e., God used natural means to accomplish a redemptive act. Of course, God’s hand in it all was evidenced by the pillars of fire and smoke accompanying the Israelites.
Of course, the fact that the Creator has interfered in the natural course of human affairs has altered the natural course of things, including human evolution, by virtue of His influence. However, whatever interferences are made cannot be determined scientifically. They are recognized by the “eyes of faith.”
Does that answer your question, or have I just complicated things more? 😉