>I don't think that the claim was that the two realms could be inconsistent
>in the terms of each realm; rather that what kinds of knowledge the two
>realms dealt with were complementary. I agree with you; truth is one. But
>to represent that underlying truth even partially may take several
>different representations, each of which captures several dimensions of the
>truth, and none of which captures them all.
While I could agree with you that different descriptions of reality would be
alright. Classical physics has two different styles of mechanical calculation.
Newton's mechanics treats objects in the world as if they are pulled around
by strings (forces). The results are quite satisfactory. But there is
another type of mechanical calculation. This is Hamiltonian mechanics. To
describe it for a non physicist is difficult, but it views objects as finding
and following a shortest path (this is done in energy space not in xyz).
Hamiltonian results are quite satisfactory. Both describe one reality. One of
form of mechanics is derivable from the other. In this sense they represent
one truth but described by two different viewpoints.
But what is done in the case of theology is not two different descriptions of
one reality. It is two descriptions of two realities.
The YEC's say that science is not true. You can find all sorts of statements
"Thus we conclude that true science is fully consistent with Christian
theology in general and creationism in particular, certain modern scientists
notwithstanding." Henry M. Morris, Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Grand
Rapids, Baker Bookhouse, 1984, p. 1984, p. 33
"The facts is, however, that the real scientific facts (as opposed
to theories and speculations) do not prove evolution and the
geologic ages at all. Instead, they clearly point to special
creation and the worldwide flood, just as the Bible teaches. The
true sciences of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and
especially thermodynamics, all gave strong witness to the primeval
special creation of all things, whereas the sciences of geophysics,
geology, paleontology, and others similarly give clear testimony to
the great Deluge."~Henry M. Morris, Biblical Basis for Modern
Science, (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1984), p. 130-131
"Yet, despite the almost universal prevalence of evolutionary
thinking, both in the past and in the present, it is completely
contrary to all true science as well as to Biblical revelation, as
we have shown at some length in the foregoing pages. This is
surely almost amazing state of affairs!"~Henry M. Morris, Twilight
of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1963), p. 77
I could go on and on with this type of quotation from the YECs. But the
statements on the part of the other side of this issue are no less disturbing
Davis Young writes:
"2. The failure of literalism and concordism suggests tht the Bible
may not be expected to provide precise 'information' or 'data'
about the physical structure and history of the planet or cosmos."
Davis A. Young, Scripture in the Hands of Geologists, Part Two,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 49, 1987,p. 294
This does not sound to me like the Bible is meant to be taken as part of the
single reality I live in. Early Genesis, according to Young, does not
describe the history of this cosmos in which I find myself. So of what value
is the early part of Genesis?
Another Christian more liberal than myself wrote:
"Some light is thrown on the relation between faith and
world views by an examination of the German words Weltbild and
Weltanschauung. Weltbild signifies an ordered picture of the
empirical world, one that is open to scientific investigation. It
primarily concerns the structure of the world rather than its
metaphysical significance. Weltanschauung refers to a
comprehensive outlook upon life and the universe. It is to be
regarded more as an interpretation of the meaning of life and the
world than a construct of the way in which the world appears to
man. Weltanschauung is sometimes distinguished from philosophy
as a basic outlook upon the world is distinguished from its
systematic articulation, but for all practical purposes it can be
viewed as an all-embracing philosophy of life, a metaphysical
"Christianity should never be tied to any Weltbild, since
the empirical descrition of the world is the task of natural
science, and the scientific picture of the world changes from
generation to generation. But we also affirm that the Christian
faith should never be united with any Weltanschauung that
characterizes a particular age, for both the ground and object of
faith differ considerably from that of cultural philosophy.
Christianity is not so much a view of the world as a report of
the saving deeds of God." ~Donald Bloesch, The Ground of
Certainty, (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971),
If a Weltbild is open to scientific investigation then he is saying that
Christianity should not be subject to verification. He has divorced
Christianity from reality and he now lies out there with Velikovsky. Nothing
I can say to him could possibly convince him that something he believes about
Christianity is wrong. Without the possiblitity of convincing me that I is
wrong, I can believe whatsoever I want to.
To conclude, I disagree with your assessment of what is being done in this
issue. People are not making two discriptions of the same reality. They are
ALL busy making two separate descriptions of two separate realities.
Foundation,Fall and Flood