RE: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 23:11:56 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 7:40 PM
> To: Glenn Morton
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith
>
>
> Glenn Morton wrote:

> > And if we allow God to use a false science to get across a true
> > theology, how can we be sure he isn't using a false
> theology as well?
> Because the purpose of scripture is to tell us the
> truth about God & God's
> relationship with the world (the classical definition of
> theology) rather than about a scientific understanding of the
> world. Cf. Jn.20:31.

But George, that is tautological. The Bible's purpose is to tell us the
truth about God and therefore it tells us the truth about God and what
its purpose is.

One can say that about any religious document one chooses. The [insert
your favorite religious sacred document here] is true because its
purpose is to teach us about God's way and therefore it teaches the
truth about Gods ways.

> The Bible does not "teach evolution." It teaches
> mediated creation of life,
> & this is important because it opens the possibility of
> understanding creation in
> evolutionary terms, but the picture in Genesis 1 is of the
> land directly bringing forth
> plants & animals. There is nothing at all about one species
> being descended from
> another.

My only point is that by accepting a mediated origin of life, one
clearly opens the possibility for evolution. Given that I know of few
other options than miraculous instantaneous creation or evolution, I
feel the way the Bible phrases things indicates evolution. I know you
disagree on this and have stated your objections before.
>
> Genesis 1 does not state what we see today as a correct
> picture of cosmological
> development, even in simple terms. It has no big bang, no
> formation of elements in
> stars, no formation of the earth from a solar nebula, and no
> descent with modification.

As I have said, one doesn't have to have a college textbook to state
truth in a simple fashion. But what a divinely inspired document should
do is state truth.

> Both Thomson's & Rutherford's theories can't both be
> true because they are
> claims of the same type - i.e., theories about a particular
> aspect of physics. But two
> different types of texts about the same thing can both be
> true.

But I would hardly think that the Hindu scriptures are about the same
thing that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are about. They are like
Thomson's and Rutherford's theories.

 Again I refer to the
> example of the historian Benjamin Thomas's description of
> Lincoln's assassination &
> Whitman's poem about its significance. They are both true,
> but if you try to read the
> poem as an historical description you get serious
> contradictions, & Thomas's account
> doesn't convey the affect of Lincoln's death very well.

But this example doesn't fit as far as I am concerned. The different
religions have different conceptions of God and thus they are mutually
exclusive. How is one to determine who is right if one can't look at
nature and what the document says about nature as a hint to truth.

>
> & by the same token one has to say that the theories of
> Kepler, Newton, &
> Maxwell are false. & when we find effects of quantum
> gravity, we'll have to say that
> general relativity is false. It doesn't matter that all
> those theories correctly
> explained phenomena that their predecessaors hadn't &
> predicted new ones. They're just
> false.

On this we agree. They are false. But when looking at two religions, you
are looking at two theories of God. All theories of God can't be true
at the same time. Which brings me back to the issue of natural truth as
an arbitor.
Received on Sun Apr 18 08:30:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 08:30:22 EDT