Scientifically documented miracles

[narnia4]

To be honest, in the past I often subconsciously thought of miracles outside of the Bible as a "private thing" that generally haven't been studied in a veridical, systematic way. In fact, I probably took it for granted that they weren't scientifically documented (not because I assumed miracles didn't happen, but secular parties wouldn't be interested in them).

More recently, however, I've seen a couple people talk about this. One is the "Miracle of Lanciano", when I saw a poster on another forum adamantly defending that miracle against a few skeptics. I've only done a cursory "investigation" (if it can even be called an investigation), but initially I'd say it looks like this is a very well investigated and substantiated miracle with the World Health Organization appointing a scientific commission that confirmed the original study with work conducted over 15 months with 500 examinations.

Here's the wikipedia article that also links to the study (in Italian only unfortunately).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

So I found that interesting, and what prompted my post was a pastor mentioning in a theology class that there are actual documented miracles in the Harvard Medical Journal. Haven't investigated that at all (yet).

My first point here is that its pretty strange in my eyes that none of this seems to be brought up often at all, even by Christians. I would suppose that a big part of that is worldview, presupposing that miracles are false will lead to all sorts of absurd "explaining away" of miracles that would seem obvious if "all things were equal" without presuppositions coming into the mix.

Secondly, since this is an area I haven't studied much, is there anyone who has to looked into it more? I find it pretty interesting.

[Ivellious]

I'd be cautious when calling Lanciano a "proven" miracle. All the WHO confirmed was that it was ancient, preserved flesh and blood. Not that it used to be bread and wine. The bishops throughout history claimed that their "investigations" proved that the miracle happened, but all that we can tell right now for certain is that: 1) some guy a long time ago (as well as a few dozen other people shortly thereafter) claimed to have seen bread and wine magically turn into Jesus's flesh and blood, and 2) Yes, the samples that exist today are indeed flesh and blood.

[Ivellious]

also, you should let us know if you find any documented miracles in the Harvard Medical Journal. Maybe ask your prof for specifics. I'd be interested to see if the documents themselves refer to "miracles" or if your professor simply interprets things in the journal as "miraculous." It would also be good to note that Harvard was, at one time (and to a lesser extent today) a religious college, and thus that may have impacted the earlier days of that journal.

[narnia4]

He was pretty clear that they were miraculous claims investigated by the Harvard Medical Journal so he wasn't just claiming that they were miraculous.

With the Lanciano miracle, a couple things.

1. Why should we believe that the eye witnesses were lying? There's no reason unless we're presupposing that it couldn't have been a miracle.

2. What's equally remarkable is the flesh and blood itself. The blood serum level showed that the blood was still "fresh" while the mineral levels indicated that it was left in the open for a long time. There were no traces of preservatives. So how can that be explained in a naturalistic way? I'm not Catholic but man...

[Ivellious]

The key is in the word "proven." If you want to deem something scientifically "proven", the burden of proof is on you. My point is that you simply can't say "well, you can't disprove it, therefore it must be true." Nobody proved that the miracle happened, which I would presume is a requirement if you want to say that miracle is "scientifically proven."

As far as the "freshness", it can be explained, depending on the definitions of the words you used. Because the samples were stored in sealed containers for most of their existence, they were not "in the open", so to speak. The "freshness" was determined using levels of certain proteins in the blood. Protein degradation decreases to almost zero when a sample is not exposed to oxygen. A sealed container is not exposed to new oxygen frequently, thus it would make sense that the samples would not exhibit the protein levels of blood that was, say, just left out on a counter for a few hundred years.

[PaulSacramento]

Define"miracle".

[RickD]

Define"miracle".

Paul, I see where you're going with this.

mir·a·cle/ˈmirikəl/
Noun:

A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

[narnia4]

The key is in the word "proven." If you want to deem something scientifically "proven", the burden of proof is on you. My point is that you simply can't say "well, you can't disprove it, therefore it must be true." Nobody proved that the miracle happened, which I would presume is a requirement if you want to say that miracle is "scientifically proven."

As far as the "freshness", it can be explained, depending on the definitions of the words you used. Because the samples were stored in sealed containers for most of their existence, they were not "in the open", so to speak. The "freshness" was determined using levels of certain proteins in the blood. Protein degradation decreases to almost zero when a sample is not exposed to oxygen. A sealed container is not exposed to new oxygen frequently, thus it would make sense that the samples would not exhibit the protein levels of blood that was, say, just left out on a counter for a few hundred years.

If you don't like the word proof, I can change it to "a miracle by far is the best explanation of the facts of the case".

More than enough evidence has been brought out to demand an explanation from those who choose to be skeptical as to the validity of the claim. If you have a congregation attesting to something, that's evidence that has to be explained. If one side makes a claim, the burden is on that side to provide evidence for that claim. But after evidence has been presented, you can't just repeat "But the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof!" Then its time to disprove the claim, if you can. What reason do we have for believing that the eyewitnesses in this case were lying?

It wasn't left in the open "most" of the time, but that still doesn't come close to explaining the apparent age of the blood. Blood changes very rapidly. It could have been carefully preserved for 1250 years and it wouldn't look like it did when it was tested.

http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english

Here I'm going to refer to a detective who studied the miracle carefully and posts at William Lane Craig's forum. I can link the discussion if someone wants. A couple quotes-

"However a scientific examination was done of the heart in 1971 by Professor Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology. Now he found a few interesting things while he was examining the tissue. For one it was a real human heart, and real human blood. Secondly the blood had properties and proteins akin to that of blood which had been shed very recently. And finally despite having protein levels akin to freshly shed blood, the blood also had reduced mineral levels akin to blood which had been left out in the open air for a very long time. It was both new, and old blood."

"What we have here is a piece of heart that does not rot, does not degrade, and doesn't disappear. We have blood that shows chemically that it's less than 15 minutes old, it's freshly spilled, even though the people who performed these tests did so 500 times over a period of 15 months. Think about that. The blood was brand new and freshly spilled young blood for 15 months. And the heart never rotted or degraded, and can still be seen today."

So yeah, saying that "It was kept in a container for most of the time" doesn't come close to explaining it in my eyes.

One more thing to add, I would tend to disbelieve a Eucharist miracle because of my disagreement with many Catholic beliefs on those issues. If one miracle claim is proven wrong, no skin off my nose. So I'm really not going in with much of an agenda, if there is a good counter to this evidence I'm willing to listen. But since I'm not going to presuppose its false no matter what, I'm leaning toward believing that it very likely is a miracle.

[narnia4]

Define"miracle".

Paul, I see where you're going with this.

mir·a·cle/ˈmirikəl/
Noun:

A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

I don't think I'd agree with that definition. First, I don't think a miracle needs to be welcome (although you would think that it often would be), it will often be surprising but not necessarily always. But more important, why must something be considered "inexplicable" in order to also be considered a miracle? Granted, the miraculous events that we are drawn to are those that don't seem to be explainable... but if you try hard enough you can "explain away" almost anything.

Here's an illustration- let's say a mother has her kid in a stroller on a sidewalk next to a busy street. She turns her back for a moment and the stroller starts to roll down the middle of the street. But just as a car is about to hit the stroller, a sudden, very powerful gust of wind picks up the heavy stroller, lifts it above the oncoming traffic, and brings it back next to the mother.

You could explain the above in natural terms, but does that mean that that's the best explanation of what happened? Talk to someone who's done missions in third world countries, probably the majority have stories of events that they believe were miraculous. A good number, many of whom I've talked to (and I'm scarcely the only one I'm sure, its pretty common actually) can recount events that are only slightly less dramatic than my illustration. And yet the skeptic is going to pick the naturalistic explanation no matter how improbable it seems, as long as they don't deem it to be impossible.

[Ivellious]

So you are honestly going to say that, scientifically speaking, the best explanation for this incident is that a hunk of bread and a glass of wine miraculously transformed into flesh and blood?

More than enough evidence has been brought out to demand an explanation from those who choose to be skeptical as to the validity of the claim.

What evidence? It's nice that it is human flesh and blood. Where in the world is there any evidence that this sample used to be bread and wine

If one side makes a claim, the burden is on that side to provide evidence for that claim. But after evidence has been presented, you can't just repeat "But the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof!"

Right. But in this case, there is no evidence. I agree that it is truly human flesh and blood...But I have yet to have any evidence shown to me that points to the conclusion that the claims made are true. The burden of proof is still in the church's corner, because at this point I have some guy's word vs. scientific fact. If you want this to be considered scientifically supported, you have to be the one to provide evidence that bread and wine became chunks of a person.

What reason do we have for believing that the eyewitnesses in this case were lying?

Plenty, actually. The middle ages were rife with faked miracles and artifacts and religious fanaticism. Forgery (and particularly religious item/miracle forgery) was an industry at the time. It provided an opportunity for fame, notoriety, monetary bonuses, etc. Note that around the same time as this miracle there were dozens of nearly identical miracles occurring throughout Italy. There is a great deal of reason for being skeptical of any miraculous claims coming out of the dark ages, much less one whose only foot to stand on is the church's blessing.

Also, I dispute the claim that no preservatives were found in the sample. I find plenty of documentation talking about mineral levels and protein degradation, but I also find that there were chlorides plus magnesium and sodium in the samples. Did you know that those are the same preservatives used in making mummies in Egypt? Looks to me like there really were things used to preserve them, and that absolutely matches the claims about proteins and mineral levels. Adding those compounds would essentially halt protein degradation but the samples would still collect minerals as they were exposed to the outside world.

And yet the skeptic is going to pick the naturalistic explanation no matter how improbable it seems, as long as they don't deem it to be impossible.

Yes, I do think it is incredibly improbable that bread and wine spontaneously turned into part of a human being. And considering no person alive has seen this, and no one has demonstrated that this can actually happen, and nobody has supposedly seen this happen for about a thousand years, and almost exclusively in Italy, I consider that, scientifically speaking, there is no way you can support this miracle. It is essentially impossible to explain barring invoking the supernatural, which clearly science cannot support without moving outside of science.

[Byblos]

Yes, I do think it is incredibly improbable that bread and wine spontaneously turned into part of a human being. And considering no person alive has seen this, and no one has demonstrated that this can actually happen, and nobody has supposedly seen this happen for about a thousand years, and almost exclusively in Italy, I consider that, scientifically speaking, there is no way you can support this miracle. It is essentially impossible to explain barring invoking the supernatural, which clearly science cannot support without moving outside of science.

Just curious, do you deny the resurrection of Christ on the same grounds?

[Ivellious]

To be perfectly honest, I consider that to be far more likely and credible than 90% of "miracles" that I hear and read about. Of course, I don't think the resurrection of Christ is "scientifically supported" either, but I don't think anyone really claims that it is. I was only taking issue with the assertion that the miracle at Lanciano is "scientific" in any way. I believe these are issues of faith. I accept that. I'm just not sold on the concept of these instances being scientific fact or anything.

[Byblos]

To be perfectly honest, I consider that to be far more likely and credible than 90% of "miracles" that I hear and read about. Of course, I don't think the resurrection of Christ is "scientifically supported" either, but I don't think anyone really claims that it is. I was only taking issue with the assertion that the miracle at Lanciano is "scientific" in any way. I believe these are issues of faith. I accept that. I'm just not sold on the concept of these instances being scientific fact or anything.

I understand, thank you for that honest answer. Although I'm not sure anyone is claiming that this miracle is scientifically supportable. And as narnia indicated, not that it would diminish it from being any less of a miracle in the event science does support it. I often refer others to the documentary The Exodus Decoded as an example of such where a plausible scientific explanation is offered for every single event of the Exodus, including the 10 plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. Does that make the event any less of a miracle? Not in the least, the miracle could very well be in bringing these naturally explainable phenomena together in such a way that they accomplish a higher purpose. In other words, the miracle is in the timing (and the prophecy of such but that's a different topic).

Personally I believe in miracles, the least reason of which is because I am Catholic. I've witnessed them first hand, heard credible eyewitness testimony of countless others. Can any of them be explained scientifically some day? Sure, why not. Some day science may discover a way to revive a dead person after 3 days. Does that diminish the miracle in any way? Reason, rationality, and yes, faith say no.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

To be perfectly honest, I consider that to be far more likely and credible than 90% of "miracles" that I hear and read about. Of course, I don't think the resurrection of Christ is "scientifically supported" either, but I don't think anyone really claims that it is. I was only taking issue with the assertion that the miracle at Lanciano is "scientific" in any way. I believe these are issues of faith. I accept that. I'm just not sold on the concept of these instances being scientific fact or anything.

That is a very logical answer and intellectually sound, as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate your acknowledgment that they are indeed issues of faith. Do you, at the very least, concede that these things are possible, even if not at present empirically provable?

[narnia4]

I'll link to the article, but its in Italian- http://www.mediafire.com/?2j2j8qalrmcrlb4:

Again, I've given the scientific facts. Doesn't seem like you're disagreeing as to what eyewitnesses testified as to what happened. So essentially the only reason to not believe this was a miraculous occurrence is because you don't believe in miracles.

We still have the respected scientist making the controversial claim here.

Rather than give my less educated opinion, I'll again refer to a post from someone who has put significant study time into the issue and talks about some of the objections. Talks about the mummy thing and so forth. Lawlessone777 at 3:48PM on 4/23/12-

http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/ ... ?trail=105

Some interesting things in this last paragraph.

Yes, I do think it is incredibly improbable that bread and wine spontaneously turned into part of a human being. And considering no person alive has seen this, and no one has demonstrated that this can actually happen, and nobody has supposedly seen this happen for about a thousand years, and almost exclusively in Italy, I consider that, scientifically speaking, there is no way you can support this miracle. It is essentially impossible to explain barring invoking the supernatural, which clearly science cannot support without moving outside of science.

Why would anyone alive see this specific miracle happen more recently? To dismiss it because of age is what CS Lewis referred to as "chronological snobbery", which is fallacious thinking. Or do you mean Eucharist miracles in general? If that's the case you're wrong on that count too, there are several claims of Eucharist miracles in very recent years and really throughout the last few thousand. Of course, not all of them are as well documented or extensively tested, but- http://www.circleofprayer.com/eucharistic-miracles.html

But I want to take a step back. An issue I should have fleshed out further in the opening post is "how" miracles can be scientifically documented. Its true that science limits itself to natural events and natural objects, but what can be done is what was done in the experiments conducted here. Science can help provide the "facts of the case", but it isn't science that interprets them. This relates to the design argument as well I think, the information is provided "by science" and we need to interpret the "facts" in the best way possible. So science can be used to support the conclusion that something is a miracle, but it will always involve more than science as well.

One last comment on eye witnesses and false miracle claims. The fact that other miracle claims were proven false shows nothing in this case. I'm well aware that there are false miracle claims, but so what? The only reason we know those miracle claims are false is because someone proved them to be false and/or that the testimony of eyewitnesses was not veridical. So it follows that the same thing should be done here, the testimony of the eyewitnesses should be shown to be mistaken or wrong somehow. But I haven't seen an attempt to do that.

I have a feeling that continuing on about the Miracle of Lanciano will only lead to arguing in circles. It was meant as one example, although I think its a good one. But like I said, I saw the miracle claim and looked at it and it impressed me a good deal... but I don't have any sort of attachment to it. I'm more interesting in miracle claims in general here than that specific one.

I should also add, thank you for the respectful conversation. On most forums I would definitely have been personally attacked by now for supporting a miracle claim like that.