Re: ID and Scientific Utility

Terry M. Gray (
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:08:44 -0600


Help me out here. Explain to me the difference between
historico-scientific and ontological/theological concordism. I suspect
that we're not so far apart on the definitions, but I want to be sure.

On the other hand, I am loathe to give up the historicity of Adam and Eve,
the historicity of the Fall, the unity of the human race, etc. And, yes, in
some sense I mean a VCR type historicity, without necessarily accepting a
VCR type reading of the Genesis account. These ontological/theological
claims do, in my opinion, intersect with history and science. None of this
is necessarily inconsistent with the primary ontological/theological
purposes of the Genesis account. I'm also not sure that any of these
ontological/theological notions necessarily violate any tenets of modern
evolutionary anthropology, especially if I'm UNWILLING to go down Glenn
Morton's path and insist that H. neanderthal and H. erectus were man in
the image of God.


>Their hermeneutic (and mine, I
>> guess) is much more concordistic (without necessarily denying that
>> scripture serves a different purpose and may not intersect with science and
>> "secular" history too often) than Denis prefers, especially at points such
>> as the origin of Adam, but much less so than much of modern evangelicalism
>> as represented by young-earth creationists and perhaps modern advocates of
>> day-age theories (although, no doubt, the Old Princeton guys were
>> day-agers).
>Yep. And I still think you are inconsistent. Please distinguish between
>historico-scientific concordism and ontological/theological concordism.
>> Denis will probably don the high priestly robes of his theology Ph.D. to
>> dispute the basis for my fondness for the Princetonians, but I have other
>> theological high priests to support my claims :-)
>There is a lawyer who argues like this. Ironically, that "priestly robe"
>was gained by doing a dissertation on Princetonians whom I very much love
>and appreciate.
>> In my opinion, the inability to come to terms with evolution mostly
>> reflects ignorance of the data and of the theory.
>Absolutely! The story of my coming to terms with evolution is exactly
>that--I knew sweet tweet (but then that's another "priestly robes" story
>[and they don't count]).
>> As I've said before I read _Darwin on Trial_ as a good summary of the
>> evidence for evolution once I remove all the rhetoric.
>What!?! Therapsids dealt with in a couple pages!?! Goodness, Terry, I
>can't believe you've written this.
>Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD
>Department of Oral Biology Residence:
>Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
>University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
>Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
>T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
>Lab: (403) 492-1354
>Residence: (403) 439-2648
>Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
>"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
>rather than expose thy opponent."

Terry M. Gray, Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801