Russ Maatman corrected me>>>>
>>I was on that committee. I am not a theologian; I'm a chemist. The
committee was a mix of theologians, philosophers, and natural scientists.
>>The committee's task was to determine what is the proper Reformed approach
to doing science--natural science as well as the other sciences. ... I think
it is fair to say that
everyone on the committee understood that one simply cannot neglect the
Bible when deciding how to do science.
>>>It is not correct to convert the question into a matter of what we know.
Rather, it is a question of what is our starting point. Surely, we cannot
say that our starting point is not something "we know."
This certainly illustrates the peril of using another person's story from
memory, 8 months after having heard it! I stand corrected.
Anyway, my (botched) point is that: God holds us accountable for our use of
his gifts, be they personal (e.g., talents, money, and time), or public
(e.g., natural resources). It is great fun to probe the mysteries of the
Universe, but there is that gulf between pondering and practicing... As
much as I love a good debate, James 1:27 tends to reign in my natural
enthusiasm: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is
this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world". It doesn't say anything about probing
the mysteries of the universe, just how we live our lives.
This raises a possible point for pondering:
What is the difference between us, pondering the mysteries of the universe,
and the Gnosticism (a heresy in the early church), who also pursued
knowledge (at the expense of sound doctrine)? Is it merely that modern
science is more empirical? I suspect that many devotees of science do so
with the same heart attitude as the Gnostics did 1800 yrs ago. If so, how
do we guard our hearts against that attitude?
I think this question touches on Russ's "our starting point".
Grace & peace,