Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 10:33:17 EST

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

    On several occasions I have written popular versions of complicated
    scientific works. I wrote simple enough that an ordinary reader would
    understand but deep enough that an expert would know that I knew what I was
    writing about. I am sure the Bible is written in that very same way. They
    day we know all that there is to be known about the universe, that day we
    will read the very same verses we have so often read and conclude that the
    Bible had it always right. Moorad

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jan de Koning" <>
    To: <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:20 AM
    Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

    > At 08:17 AM 08/02/02 -0500, george murphy wrote:
    > >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.
    > > > 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
    > >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
    > >in terms of other things whose truth is agreed upon. If they could be,
    > >wouldn't be fundamental assumptions.
    > > 3. Your 2 "unprovable assumptions" go far beyond what the 99.9%
    > >working scientists who are methodological naturalists actually assume.
    > Agreed, and I wished that people (in general) would understand that men
    > living even 600 years ago, but even more so those living 3000 years ago
    > not think in the same categories as scientists in the 21st century do.
    > Also, that the word "truth" has undergone a great evolution. It is
    > from the same stem as "troth" and thus indicates more faithfulness as what
    > is now scientific "truth." Biblical "truth" in Genesis could not be
    > scientifically written down as nobody would understand and listen. So to
    > read it that way is reading into the Bible words which were never
    > "Yom" can be translated as "day", yes, but also as "period". Even the
    > "day" has undergone some change in meaning when it is used by scientists.
    > Jan de K.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 10:32:08 EST