Re: (Fwd) Re: Science and the new Presbyterian Catechism

Moorad Alexanian (
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:57:12 -0500 (EST)

At 06:23 AM 1/14/99 -0800, Lawrence Johnston wrote:
>Ron you wrote:
>>The following is today's section of the new catechism for the
>>Presbyterian Church (USA): Is it naive?
>>The Study Catechism
>>Tuesday, 12 January 1999
>>Question 27. Does your confession of God as Creator contradict the
>>findings of modern science?
>>No. My confession of God as Creator answers three questions: Who?,
>>How? and Why? It affirms that (a) the triune God, who is
>>self-sufficient, (b) called the world into being out of nothing by the
>>creative power of God's Word (c) for the sake of sharing love and
>>freedom. Natural science has much to teach us about the particular
>>mechanisms and processes of nature, but it is not in a position to answer
>>these questions about ultimate reality, which point to mysteries that
>>science as such is not equipped to explore. Nothing basic to the
>>Christian faith contradicts the findings of modern science, nor does
>>anything essential to modern science contradict the Christian faith.
>To me the virginal conception of Jesus may be explainable by
>biology but Christ's and Lazarus' resurrections and many of Christ's
>miracles might stretch the "Nothing basic to the Christian faith
>contradicts the findings of modern science, nor does anything
>essential to modern science contradict the Christian faith" past
>what I could agree with. I think one would have to play games with
>either the basics of Christianity or science (or both).
>John (McKiness)
> Dear john and other ASA'ers:
> Following up John's thread
here, it
>seems to me that item #27 quoted above could only be sustained if
>you adopted the philosophy/theology that Science and Christianity
>are two non-interacting majesteria, Science having authority in
>matters of the real physical/biological world of empirical facts, and
>Christianity dealing with matters of the Spirit, and Soul.
> The Bible seems to imply that God allows Himself to show
>people His power, as John McKiness says, in both arenas by
>miracles (contrary to physical laws). Jesus said it in a nutshell in
>Mark 2:9 - "Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are
>forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? ( N I V )
> Yes, Ron I think it is either naive or carefully crafted so as
>not to give offence to us hard-headed Sciency types.
> With warmest regards,
> Larry
>Lawrence H. Johnston 917 E. 8th st.
>professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
>University of Idaho (208) 882-2765
> ==================

Science has a monopoly on theory not on reality. One can never have total
understanding of the physical universe without knowing God. However,
scientific theories are devoid of God. Paul's statement that people would be
lead to God through the study of creation makes sense to me. Scientists have
to be wise enough to know the distinction between the real thing and their
scientific toys! Otherwise, "Professing to be wise, they became fools." Rom.