Re: Science/religion article featuring Bill Phillips

Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 20:19:43 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Science/religion article featuring Bill Phillips"

    In a message dated 10/26/2001 1:35:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:


    I must leave the issue of theistic/deistic evolution to others. However, you
    might consider the statement by B.B. Warfield made ninety years ago (about a
    book called Darwinism Today) that seems to be relevant,

    "Some lack of genuine philosophical acumen must be suspected when it is not
    fully understood that teleology is in no way inconsistent with-is rather
    necessarily involved in-a complete system of natural causation. Every
    teleological system implies a complete 'causo-mechanical' explanation as its

    My own field of study responds more to your statement:
    << So, it behooves those who hope to convince a scientist that our
     (Judeo-Christian) God is the God of Creation, that they be able to show how
     the Biblical Creation story jibes with the observed data. Then the
     scientist can feel comfortable accepting the "rest of the story." >>

    The biblical creation story does jibe with the observed data, BUT as it was
    interpreted and understood by the people of those times, the people to whom
    the revelation originally came. Consequently, showing how it jibes with the
    observed data makes a scientist feel comfortable with the "rest of the story"
    by showing him that the scientific particulars of the story are
    contextualizations (to use a modern missionary term) rather than statements
    that could seamlessly overlay modern interpretations of the observed data.
    For explication, see my paper, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist
    Theory and in Biblical Context. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
    49:2 (June, 1997) 85-95, also at Bible and



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 26 2001 - 20:20:20 EDT