My point in bringing the new heaven and the new earth is that such biblical
statements have scientific impact. It is clear to me that no human
scientific model is going to predict such events. Of course, we can do
detective work about material evidence which surrounds us. But such work is
replete with assumptions and the forensic type of efforts which it leads to
can never be convulsive. What bothers me is that we start doing science and
then end up arguing with the theologians, then somewhere along the line we
ceased to do science and began to go into the subject matter of the
theologians. Ontological questions are very much outside the purview of
science. As I often say, if a Christian child comes out of a biology class
and says there is no God, then theology was taught in that class.
>In another note you wrote to George Murphy,
>>When I discuss science, I do not bring my Christian faith into the picture.
>>It is only when we discuss the philosophy of science that my worldview,
>>based on my faith, comes into play.
>When I was a YEC I used to take this view. At work, between Monday and
>Friday, I would talk and act like an old earth geoscientist. I had to
>because the YEC view had no explanations for the geological data. On
>Saturday and Sunday I was a YEC. I finally figured out that this was a bit
>hypocritical of me and besides, if my philosophy was unable to be discussed
>in ALL aspects of my life, then maybe something was wrong with my
>philosophy. After all, Hebrews 2:8 says that God has put all things in
>subjection to him. How could this verse be true if I couldn't explain the
>geological data in relation to Him?
Glenn, that is the problem. You equate what I say with your previous life
of a YEC. I am just raising questions, not advocating a particular view. It
is a sort of agnosticism.