Re: A modest proposal

From: gordon brown (
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 21:14:58 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: A modest proposal"

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

    > Jim,
    > I think you're on to something. I looked at your draft and found one
    > problem. TE is not day-age. Day-age is connected to OEC, as found in Hugh
    > Ross from more of a science approach and Gleason Archer (not sure of that
    > name) in theology. TE does not go along with bird and fish arriving
    > simultaneously, with quadrupeds and man succeeding them. Or with fruiting
    > trees before fish. So OEC and TE need to be distinguished.

    There are a number of different interpretations of the days of creation
    besides the YEC consecutive 24 hour periods interpretation (day-age,
    literary framework, days of revelation, intermittent days, et al). I don't
    think that OEC and TE are so narrowly defined that all OECs or all TEs
    must use the same interpretation. The following is a pair of quotes from
    Science and Christian Faith by James Orr in the Fundamentals that appears
    to endorse both TE and day-age.

    "There is no violence done to the narrative in substituting in thought
    "aeonic" days--vast cosmic periods--for "days" on our narrower
    sun-measured scale."

    ""Evolution", in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for

    However, the problems that you mentioned in holding to both a TE position
    and a day-age position should also be problems for holding both an OEC and
    a day-age position.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 21:14:56 EDT