Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 11:30:21 EDT
In a message dated 6/25/03 8:27:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> I'm wondering now if this also represents the views of persons on this list
> who take a similar concordist approach -- arguing that the the results of
> the empirical natural sciences provide support for the Bible, when properly
> Anyone else care to comment?
I have not deeply explored the concordism of the creation from a geloogical
perspective because I believe the non-human creation account is an artifact of
earlier creation accounts from the landed agricultural states in the
I have used psychology and anthropology to understand the fall and the
Abrahamic succession. That perspective is what I describe in my paper True
Religion, the darwinian interpretation of biblical symbols, so I am usually silent
when there is a discussion of geology and the creation accounts.
I don't believe the "geological" creation account is central but represents
the biblical author placing Judaism squarely in the middle of the earth and as
the source of all things as all ancient religions assumed their own axis
Interestingly, my point of view also had an airing at amherst college in
mass. at the meeting of the human behavior and eovlution society there in 2000. I
have chronicled the account titled "A Personal Account Of the Session on
Evolutionary Biology and Religion At the Annual Meeting Of the Human Behavior And
Evolution Society Amherst College, Massachusetts June 7-11, 2000 and it is
available for the asking.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 11:30:47 EDT