Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: John W Burgeson (
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 12:22:11 EST

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    Allen wrote:

    "Your "factual knowledge" is really "evolutionary interpretation of the
    within the assumption of the mythology of Naturalism." This lack
    discernment between fact and interpretation is the very thing which
    (and you) seems to be incapable of comprehending. Within "sound Biblical
    thinking" means that scientifically acquired data is interpreted within
    Biblical paradigm. Thus the bible is the basis for interpretation of the
    data. It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to
    the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological Naturalism."

    That's a new term -- "mythological naturalism."

    I take it that when one accepts the very peculiar YEC interpretation of
    Genesis, that every piece of observational and experimental data he/she
    knows about must necessarily be shoehorned into that interpretation, and
    when this is not done, one is practicing this "mythological naturalism."

    The problem is, Allen, that when one tries to shoehorn all that data into
    a YEC interpretation, "the shoe does not fit." Gosse, in OMPHALOS, comes
    as close as anyone, IMHO, even though many here will take issue with even
    this much. To do so, he must necessarily posit "virtual time," which
    leads many to accuse him of seeing God as a great deceiver.

    The YEC claims I've seen are always a strange mishmash of ad hocs,
    collapsing under their own weight. I've read Glenn Morton's stuff --
    without being in total agreement with him, I do not at all see he has any
    problem distinguishing facts from interpretation. Whether or not I do,
    I'll leave to the judgement of others.

    Genesis was written, so the scholars say, about 600 BC, most probably
    from earlier legends told around the campfire. To base one's science upon
    it is simply ludicrous.
    It is not even a question of biblical inerrancy. even a fundy who thinks
    the KJV is inspired, and I have one correspondent who fits that
    definition, ought to be able to understand the message of the book.

    And that message is NOT scientific knowledge.

    Again, if I assume that scientific knowledge is what the Bible teaches,
    then I must reject the Bible. It is as simple as that.

    John Burgeson (Burgy)
           (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
            humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 12:26:49 EST