RE: Another thing people can throw rocks at

From: JW Burgeson (
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 16:16:19 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Emergence of information out of nothing?"

    Glenn wrote many words, among which were: "Now tell me how do I say that
    about "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? I can't say,
    I don't know if God created the heavens and the earth but I am sure that the
    story is true. It simply doesn't compute to me. If you can tell me how to
    make that one both real and not real, then y'all might be able to convince
    this obstinate fellow."

    My take on that is that not only is that statement true, but that it is one
    of the three main "messages" in the myth that is Gen 1-11. Elsewhere I
    mentioned the other two messgaes).

    "I would prefer to call it (my mindseet) the scientific mindset. My job is listen to 'concordistic' stories about the data at hand. I have to
    spot the flaws."

    Interesting. I had not thought about your particular profession in that
    light, or that "concordistic stories" might play a part.

    Of course, I'd also like to think I have a "scientific mindset," and whether
    or not I do, that mindset leads me to different conclusions about Gen 1-11
    than yours. But, I hasten to add, if I were to select which of the many
    theories about Adam, etc. were most likely true, given that I shared your
    concordist views, I'd have to say the ideas presented by one Glenn Morton in
    his two books are in first place.

    "I think my bosses would have every right to fire me if I told them that we
    should drill prospect X even though the geologic history is false. It
    wouldn't matter that I told the boss that the geologist came up with a
    wonderful geologic story which made me gasp in awe and wonder at his/her
    creativity, and that it even left tears in my eyes at the beauty of this
    story. I couldn't tell them that it was a wonderful morality tale about the
    conflict of great forces in the earth. I couldn't tell them that I don't
    know if the history is true, but the story is. That simply won't cut it."

    Do you really expect me to disagree? No, you are obviously doing the right
    thing here.

    "... Yet, when it comes to spending our souls (betting our souls) on a given
    theology of salvation, we think it is appropriate to base that bet on
    standards which are less stringent than I use to spend a mere $20 million.
    Frankly, my soul is worth more than what I spend in the oil industry. I
    absolutely refuse to settle for a lesser
    standard of truth."

    Here is where you and I, probably, differ the most. I do not "bet my soul"
    on any particular "theology of salvation." To do so misses, I think, the
    great message of Xtianity. It is Christ who is my salvation, and not any
    particular model or theory or theology of Christ, or of God, or of the
    Bible, etc.

    When I said you still had the YEC mindset, I meant only that you would
    agree with Duane Gish that "getting Gen 1-11 right" in terms of historical
    and scientific coincidence was of great importance to one's salvation. It is
    that mindset that we do not share. OTOH, getting Gen 1-11 right in terms of
    its central three messages IS important. But those three messages have 0 to
    do with either history or science.

    Hoss (aka Burgy)

    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 04 2002 - 17:02:46 EDT