Re: a request for help

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 12:14:12 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Pasteur and nature of science"

    Paul wrote;
     To a large extent the issue is a non-issue once a person understands that
    Scripture God accommodated his theological revelation to the science of the
    times. The relation between Christianity and geology is no different in
    principle than between Christianity and mechanical engineering.

    Best wishes,


    Paul is this really so, if so then the relationship between history and
    archaeology is just the same as between Christianity and engineering!!

    The reason that the empirical sciences cause no problem is that they do not
    deal with historical questions so who cares whether g is 981, 2345 or 45.
    Whatever it is it is. Except of course over miracles.

    Historical sciences raise questions whether we like it or not. Does the
    archaeology of Palestine in the 1st century support or deny or is silent
    over events described in the gospels. If Pilate had only taken office in 60
    AD the 4 evangelists are in the wrong.

    Geology raises questions over Creation and Flood and one only has to look at
    the history of geology to see this. Were it not for geology there would be
    no overiding reason why a 144 hour creation is not OK.

    Whether or not we think there is a problem over geology the fact is that to
    many there is, whether those who see geology as negating the whole bible or
    a creationsit clinging to Noah's Ark. People need some understandiing of all
    this hence the value of Davis Young's book.

    To blow my trumpet you can try my essay "Journeys into Deep Time" ed Stuart
    McCready, Sourcebooks 2001.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 14:05:29 EST