Schönborn & Coyne on Science Methodology

[NowAgnostic]

That all other sciences are subordinate to theology does not mean this. It means that all sciences ultimately help theology like "handmaidens."

OK, theologians are going to have to take science seriously then - and realize some of their own conclusions about revelation may be flawed.

God would not will anything that is a contradiction; He is rational.

Then if it’s not a contradiction for a frog to turn into a pig, then it’s wrong to say it is the nature of a frog to remain a frog.

No, there is an ontological distinction.

Could you explicate precisely what it is?

Like what? Give me an example, please.

Sure. I can use a simple deductive argument.

Nature is whatever God wills. (Assumption)
God can will to bring a dead man to life. (From the definition of omnipotence.)
Therefore, it is possible that a dead man coming to life is part of nature. (Since it is part of the will of God.)
Therefore, nature can bring a dead man to life, contra Aquinas.

 

[Geremia]

OK, theologians are going to have to take science seriously then - and realize some of their own conclusions about revelation may be flawed.

Yes, of course theology is not infallible.

Sure. I can use a simple deductive argument.

Nature is whatever God wills. (Assumption)
God can will to bring a dead man to life. (From the definition of omnipotence.)
Therefore, it is possible that a dead man coming to life is part of nature. (Since it is part of the will of God.)
Therefore, nature can bring a dead man to life, contra Aquinas.

You seem to rely on an equivocation of the term “nature.” Which means “supernatural nature” (natures of the supernatural order, e.g., that of the human soul, the angels, etc.), and which means “natural (or material) nature” (e.g., that of frog, the nature of an hydrogen atom, etc.)?

 

[NowAgnostic]

You seem to rely on an equivocation of the term “nature.” Which means “supernatural nature” (natures of the supernatural order, e.g., that of the human soul, the angels, etc.), and which means “natural (or material) nature” (e.g., that of frog, the nature of an hydrogen atom, etc.)?

However you wish to subdivide nature doesn’t matter if nature is whatever God wills. The argument still stands.