Re: Science and Faith

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:34:05

Gene Godbold wrote:

>In commenting, I would like to connect this idea with
> science as I have seen and heard it practiced and a
>comment that Glenn Morton made (and Dennis Sweitzer (sp?)
>has been gently teasing him about) about being known
>forever as (paraphrasing) the idiot who connected the
> Medit. flood with Noah.


>2) He knew his peers wouldn't hang him out to dry for
> proposing an imperfect or incomplete model or even one
>that was completely wrong in some of its particulars
>In believing (1) he wasn't much different from a
> Christian's confidence in the word of God as expressed in
>the above passage. And (2) illustrates
>why it would be hypocritical for scientists to condemn
> Glenn Morton for proposing a model "in principle
>verifiable" to explain how events in history might have
>occurred that does justice to both scripture and science.
>Of course, I realize that he was probably being
>self-depreciating and poking fun at himself.

I would like to say a couple of things here. I was poking
fun at myself, and don't mind what people think of me or my
view except if they point out something that contradicts
known fact. But there is a sense that history is only kind
to someone proposing a flawed view IF their view fit most
of the known the facts of that day. Note the reception
Gosse has recieved, or even more recently Velikovsky. But
other people with flawed views have been treated kindly
because they dealt with the data of the day. John Ray,
Ptolemy, Aristotle etc were treated kindly because they
didn't ignore things they knew.

But one observation I have made of Christian apologists is
that in general they don't want to be very specific and
risk verification or refutation. In fact we run from
verification and prediction like chickens in a barnyard run
from a hungry dog. The YEC's say that all the data of
science is wrong because the scientists have a big bias
and are not to be trusted. Thus they don't have to face
the facts.

Ramm who is somewhat of a centrist goes out of his way to
point out that it is unlikely that evidence for his flood
will be found. Verification is avoided.

Those of a more liberal bent, run in another direction.
They say that there is nothing to be verified at all. The
Scripture doesn't relate verifiable events and so once
again verification is successfully avoided.

> Provisional models that accord with *most* of what is
>known and contradict the *least* amount of what is known
>are just a necessary part of doing science.

It should also be part of Christian apologetics.

Foundation,Fall and Flood