Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 00:32:17 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "phylum evolution"

    From: John W Burgeson <>
    > >It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to
    > >reinterpret the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological
    > That's a new term -- "mythological naturalism."

    Not a new term. It is simply stating that Naturalism is mythology. It's
    assumptions have no factual basis. The unprovable assumptions are:
    1. matter/energy/motion originated (and continually operates) according to
    natural laws by which they interact that is inherent within them.
    2. Nature is all there is and has ever been or ever will be.

    > 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 very same thing is done within the mythology of Naturalism. It is the
    world view/ paradigm within which every piece of observational and
    experimental data is interpreted. That world view interpretations are in
    conflict with the Creationary Catastrophist interpretation of the very same

    > 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.

    All data is interpreted within (not shoehorned into) either Naturalism or
    Creationary Catastrophism. The problem has been that Naturalistic
    interpretations have been the de fecato truth of sciences for so long that
    many cannot think outside the box of Naturalism.

    > Genesis was written, so the scholars say, about 600 BC, most probably
    > from earlier legends told around the campfire.

    Genesis was written long before 600 BC. The literary structure of Genesis
    closely parallels the literary structure of the era of cuneiform writing on
    clay tablets. This was before and during the time traditionally apply to
    when Moses lived. By 600 BC, the art of cuneiform writing was lost in dusty
    ruins for hundreds of years. It has only been since the advent of modern
    archaeology that the similarities has been rediscovered.

    > And that message is NOT scientific knowledge.

    The Bible is not a scientific tome, but it does record observations from
    which we can draw conclusions concerning the state of the world during the
    Flood Catastrophe for instance. It does not matter precisely what the
    ancient writers of the Bible may have believed about the natural world
    around them. Their observations would be largely independent of their
    personal interpretations of the information. We may take the observations
    and look at them within our world view and propose interpretations based
    upon what we now know about the world today.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 00:30:44 EST