Re: Grapenuts, anyone?

Moorad Alexanian (
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:53:51 -0500

Dear Allan,

Sorry for the delay. I just did not rise the issue of grapenuts and ran away
from it. I had to leave for Raleigh, NC on Thursday and just got back last

Clearly Genesis is not a scientific article indicating the best the human
mind could reason on the whole of creation. I approach Genesis as knowledge
gained by man in close proximity with God--revealed truth. Our present
theories is the best we can do with the current data and under the
assumption that we make to analyze that data. Of course, past events are
hard to characterize as science. If it is not logically inconsistent to
believe that God could have created the whole thing in a split second, then
we can believe anything from that all the way to the assumptions made by
evolutionist who are atheists. The choice of assumptions seems to be left to

-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Harvey <>
To: ASA Listserve <>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Grapenuts, anyone?

>At 03:15 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>Dear Howard,
>>I agree with most of what you wrote. However, your last statement (5) is
>>where the rub is. It is true that God could have devised things in such a
>>fashion that all would develop from non-living to living by natural means.
>>If it is so, why isn't it so written in Scripture? Scripture seems to
>>indicate more of an abrupt creation of man rather than a continuos
>>That is my puzzle.
>And that's what it always seems to come back to -- *IF* we view early
>Genesis as a document that is trying to tell us the "how" and "when" of
>origins, then our reaction to Howard's statements must be something like,
>"Yes, God certainly could have done things that way, but Scripture tells
>us he didn't."
>So then one must get into what kind of inspired literature we are dealing
>with to decide whether we must make its apparent "how" and "when"
>statements "line up" with science. If we decide that Scripture is not
>trying to give us scientific information in this instance, then Moorad's
>objection vanishes.
>It seems that, as we try to decide whether or not we should take Genesis
>as giving us "how" and "when" information, we can observe that a
>literalist reading that makes that assumption produces contradictions
>with God's revelation in his creation (the lack of waters above and
>below, no solid "firmament", longer timescales, etc.). If one
>interpretational approach to Genesis leads to a disconnect with the
>physical reality of God's creation, that is a good argument that said
>approach is wrong. But using extrabiblical information to decide between
>views of Scripture is a touchy thing, and I can understand that it makes
>some people uncomfortable.
>| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | |
>| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
>| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
>| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |