Re: Fw: Fw: Mere Creation conference

Jan de Koning (75674.3121@CompuServe.COM)
25 Nov 96 13:38:51 EST

Dear Russ,

Hallo, after these many years. How are you doing? I follow your debate,
but since I am not a biologist, as you know, I did not want to get involved
beyond a question about the difference between Macro- and micro-evolution. What
is the principial difference? You know, that I asked that question in our
meetings seven or so years ago. I still have not read an answer that makes
clear to me what the basic, principial (not principal) difference is. I know
you tried to tell me in the past, but we must be talking past each other. If
God can, in micro evolution change a little tiny bit, why can God not make two
or more, even larger, changes in a row? That at particular times more kind of
animals appear or disappear is God's work as much, as making sure that we have
so many different kinds of dogs. I cannot see the logical difference, nor why
it should be so different in principle. I am afraid, that the difference is
caused by the way you and I are reading Gen.1. I cannot read it as a story in
which scientific "truths" are told. All the arguments I read so far to defend,
that Gen.1 is "true" scientifically are based on an incorrect reading of Gen.1,
and make me feel uncomortable with the bible as a whole.

"True scientifically" is a concept, that the bible does not know. The
bible talks in a language well understood by the original hearers, showing that
God created and singing about that. True, truth and troth are all derived from
the same root: faithfulness. You know the arguments: Gen.1 sings of God's
faithfulness, and rejects the theologies of neighbouring religions. Here I
don't even talk about the very limited aspect most English writing authors have
about defining "science." I only want a clarification of how we can read the
bible together without getting involved in fruitless debates.

Jan de Koning
Willowdale, Ont.