From: John W Burgeson <email@example.com>
> Allen Roy wrote, in part:
Just a quick point, the review was written by Helen Fryman, not me.
> OK, I'll buy that. That leaves three possibilities:
> 1. The story is meant to be read as a spiritual truth wrapped up in a
> 2. The story is meant to be read as literally true, and is literally
> 3. The story is meant to be read as literally true, and is not.
> Obviously Allen takes possibility #2. His interpretation "trumps" known
I, Helen and those at the Conference at least are among those who would
consider point 2 the only possible consideration.
I hold the position that science (i.e. the scientific method) can only be
done within a philosophical paradigm. That paradigm guides the observation
process, determines which questions get asked, and guides the interpretation
of the data acquired through the methodology. All science is "trumped" by
the philosophy within which science is done, that is, the philosophy
determines how science is understood.
In the case of Creationary Catstrophism, the Bible is and MUST BE the final
arbiture of truth upon those things which it actually addresses as passed on
to us by God through his prophets. In the case of atheistic Evolutionism,
based on the religious and mythical philosophy of Naturalism, interpretation
of the data MUST BE understood within the idea that nature is all there is,
there is no God to mess with things. In the scholarly world, atheistic
Natualism is considered to be "Science" and the Bible is religious
"mythology." In reality, atheistic Naturalism is abject mythology and the
Bible is truth based on a faith relationship with the Creator.
It is the interpretations of the data from these two opposite philosophies
which causes all the conflict. Any and all attempts to find correlation
between the interpretations of these mutually exclusive philosophies will
result in one or the other of the philosophies winning out and the other
being compromised. Options 1 and 3 above are typical interpretations where
Naturalism wins out over the Bible. The Bible is put subject to atheistic
mythology. Simple, straight-foreward reading of the Bible text is rejected,
(That's what it says, but that's not what it means!) because of the demands
of mythic Naturalism.
The methodology of science can only deal with the repeatable. If we are
dealing with issues which cannot be reapated, we are not using and, indeed,
cannot use the scientific method, i.e. science.
> Dawkins et. al. take possibility #3, and, partly on that basis, reject
> Christianity. A lot of people take that route, rejecting #2 as
> intellectual suicide.
> I, of course, as well as most Christians, take #1 as the most reasonable
> position, given that I must accept Allen's statement above. Which may, or
> may not, be true itself. I am suspicious of a person with so much
I think your claim "as well as most Christians" is not supportable by
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 15:44:58 EDT