From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 13:21:23 EST
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:49:24 +0100 Peter Ruest <email@example.com>
> I am in the middle of such a discussion with a young-earth
> (who has published a book-long theological defense of the
> creationist postulate).
> The crucial point he doesn't seem to check is that there is a close
> parallel between the theological treatment of the Bible and the
> scientific treatment of nature (or creation). We have two "books"
> God, his Word (in the Bible), and his work (in creation). The
> text (originals) is data, and the creation is data. But theology is
> interpretation, and science is interpretation. Data are given -
> are, in a sense, God's truth, which is absolutely reliable (although
> are not able to see all of it directly, both with the biblical
> and with the realities of creation). We cannot change the data, we
> at most falsify or obscure it. But any interpretation, be it of
> texts or of observations in nature, are the work of fallible humans.
> reliability has certain probabilities, which range from 0 to
> below 100%. Any interpretations must be subject to revision if
> necessary. Any pitting of "the Bible" against "science" is therefore
> confusion of categories, and therefore mistaken.
You are neglecting a vital principle that some adopt: "My interpretation
of scripture is inerrant. Therefore my science is correct. You're
interpretation of nature is based on error. Therefore your interpretation
of scripture is faulty." Understand "faulty" to mean "demonic." What
rational principle can you suggest to counter "ultimate truth"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 13:24:49 EST