We can prove Jesus' message if the tomb we found really belonged to his brother James

I'd best make this note to begin, before I become too sensitive about my posts. This blog is merely reflections - not formal essays, and not edited.

I have never had any gift for science, nor do I generally have a high level of interest in the subject. Nonetheless, there are elements which I find awe-inspiring. When I saw the photographs of the planets from the Voyager project, or a presentation of the DNA strand, for example, I felt a combination of wonder and worship of the Creator. Since childhood, and no less now, for some reason I am rather inspired by looking at dinosaur skeletons.

Today, I heard a BBC report about current efforts which may enlighten us about the origins of matter. I undoubtedly would not be able to understand them, but it is quite exciting. (I'm going to reserve comments on the story that followed... nuclear power somehow gives me mental pictures that are less inspiring.)

During the Middle Ages, many saw each species (including individual flora and fauna) not only as distinctly created but as presenting a lesson. (I just heard an indignant Miaow from my cat, Mireille, about the injustice of some of the conclusions... I must get that cat to stop sitting on me when I'm at the computer.) Of course, many of the 'creatures' whose humours or characteristics they considered were totally fanciful - even Hildegard of Bingen sets forth the medical usage for parts of the gryphon. I do envy their consciousness of the hand of God in creation, and, hard though it is for a modern mind to grasp, find it quite lovely that divine revelation (in some specific detail) was seen as expressed in anything from the ant-lion to the sun. Most would have had no words for this, yet I see an internalised recognition of cosmic redemption and revelation. (Only a doctor of humanities would be able to develop such a poetic image... bear with me, because I am that odd creature, an overly intellectual Franciscan.)

At the moment, I am studying the 19th century in great depth. One of the elements of my studies which I'm finding fascinating is that, even when I'm hardly a stranger to a period, the scope of sources I need to pursue greatly expands the viewpoints with which I am familiar.

On one level, it would have been wonderful for those in the period to have the new knowledge of geology, archaeology, biology, and ancient cultures available. Even with my scant knowledge of science, it takes a moment to remind myself that it would have been staggering as well - though the amazed and upset would not have been the same. Where the 'argument from design,' and the idea of scriptural accounts as detailed history, etc., clearly were intended to foster faith, the fears of a threat to that faith from new discoveries are understandable. I wonder if the fear was the source of the 'crisis of faith' more than the discoveries themselves.

I realise that Darwin was not the last word on anything, yet I doubt too many of us today, however devout, would see a concept of evolution as incompatible with creation. I'm rather enjoying the exercise of trying to place myself in evangelical Victorian 'shoes' to grasp how very frightening this was to many. How could the argument from design be squared with a history of creation which destined some species to die out? (That the two approaches have no real connection would have stopped no one with this fear, I am sure.)

Naturally, it would be my inclination to think that the new knowledge of ancient cultures would have been most exciting. I would think that people who loved the scriptures would find this love enriched by knowing more of the lands and civilisations there referenced. It is interesting to see sources from the time which express confusion in this area. The previous concept (on the parts of those writers), where Israel was unique not only in salvation history but in cultural development (...this working class kid is having a brief giggle about how this reminds me of Victorian ideas about prosperity and national power being the clear mark of divine providence... let us pass over that Israel always seemed to be in trouble...), was threatened by seeing that, in many respects, they were not so different from those around them.

I know there still are many people who have a fear of knowledge - the slightest checking of stories on the Internet is a 'revelation.' My question would be why those who are so certain that divine providence is on their side would so fear that ideas and questions alone could demolish faith. I suppose it is part of human nature to lack the honesty to say "I don't know."

Our faith can never be 'proven.' The most avid believer is aware of the limitations of our vision. Where would, for example, discovering Noah's ark make a difference? It might add credence to the historical background for the Genesis account - but would not prove divine existence, revelation, the grace of response.

Giggling once more - heaven knows that the Victorians who saw biological theories of evolution as threatening loved an evolutionary theory of their own. They could be quite smug about being in a time which had evolved to a point of unmatched perfection. (Their 'optimism' is beyond the grasp of my pessimistic mind... and it is tragic that it would take world wars to shake some out of this complacency.) I am wondering how they dealt with believing that this perfection was finally achieved in the 19th century... if the example of the perfect man had come about nearly 2,000 years earlier.