Re: Scripture and Nature Data (was Fall of evolved man)

Karen G. Jensen (
Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:28:04 -0600

Dear Moorad,

Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:45:36 -0500 (EST) you wrote:

>I am not denying any data. It is a question of interpreting the data which
>must invariably be based on all sorts of assumptions. First that the
>question of origins is a scientific question and thus only silencers can
>provide an answer. Second, make it clear how scientific conclusions are
>obtained not only from the data but also by assuming models from whence
>conclusions can be derived.

There is a lot of discussion of "Science vs Religion", as though people had
to choose one or the other. I think this is a mistake.

The way I see it, two main kinds of data we have are Scripture and Nature
data, both of which represent truth, and are clear to us if we have eyes to
see them clearly. When we interpret these, we come up with our Theology
and Science, both of which are human and erring. There is Biblical
theology and varying grades to totally non-biblical theology, and there is
Scriptural science, and varying degrees to non-scriptural science. We see
according to the "glasses" we have on -- i.e. our assumptions, whether they
are Scriptural precepts, or other ideas. Two people can look at the same
thing and see very different data, and come up with very different
interpretations. So it is very important to be aware of one's assumptions,
and to compare them with Scripture.

Make it clear that evolution theory and
>cosmology are purely deductive and not experimental sciences. Remember the
>word science conjures its prototype physics which is an experimental science.

Yes. There is a major distinction between experimental and historical
science. The former is subject to repeated trials and verification. The
latter is not -- only evidences of its results are available for
investigation; the actual events cannot be repeated. We can study fossils
and geological layers and modern analogies of fossilization and
sedimentation, and modern volcanic eruptions, etc., but we can't really
"prove" whether the fossils and layers actually formed gradually or rapidly
(long ages or the Flood). And we can find evidence of design (more every
day!) but not "prove" that it originated by creation or molecules-to-man
evolution. So again our perceptions, interpretations, conclustions,
depend on our precepts or assumptions, and whether or not these are

Isaiah 40:8