Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 08:17:40 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    Allen Roy wrote:

    > 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
    > >>Naturalism."
    > > 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.

            1. This is not what serious scholars mean by "mythology". You seem to
    be assuming that when scholars of religion, literature &c use the word "myth"
    that it has the pejorative sense of "fairy tale."
            2. & the fundamental assumptions of a theory (or in this case
    meta-theory) never have a "factual basis" in the sense that they can be proven
    in terms of other things whose truth is agreed upon. If they could be, they
    wouldn't be fundamental assumptions.
            3. Your 2 "unprovable assumptions" go far beyond what the 99.9% of
    working scientists who are methodological naturalists actually assume.

    > 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.

            The notion that "Naturalism" as you've defined it and "Creationary
    Catastrophism" are the only two world views available is so obviously false that
    it only needs to be pointed out to be rejected. It amounts to saying that our
    only choices are hard-core atheism and YEC.

    > > 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.

           If this claim about Genesis were true, one would expect modern
    commentaries on Genesis such as those by Von Rad or Westermann at least to
    mention it. But they don't.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 08:16:37 EST