Re: a request for help

Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 15:06:57 EST

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

    In a message dated 01/08/2002 11:06:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

    << 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.

    You have a good point, and I did recommend Young's books. At the same time I
    was on the one hand seeking to deflate the common assumption that Gen 1-11
    will line up with geological facts and hence one of the two must be twisted
    in order to be true to Christianity; and on the other hand I was taking the
    subject at face value and noting that Christianity per se has little if any
    need of geological knowledge. Given the pragmatic realties, however, I will
    rephrase my comment in line with your correction: Evangelical Christianity
    needs to read Davis Young's books and presumably your own essay as well.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 15:07:49 EST