RE: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:47:01 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy []
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 2:15 PM

> In my attempt to answer briefly I didn't put this very
> well. My point is not
> that the Bible is theologically true because it's
> theologically true. It is rather that
> the purpose of the Bible is theological, so that one might
> expect that the author would
> be more concerned with its theological than with its
> scientific truth. I.e., one cannot
> conclude (as you do) that the use of obsolete cosmology
> compromises its theological
> truth.

Unfortunately, more people given the polls (the YECs) agree with my
version of this. I think this is why the ASA is totally inconsequential
in these areas.

I wrote:
> > 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.
> This seems obvious to you because you're a westerner of
> ~2000 trained in
> science. To somebody of biblical times the earth & waters
> bringing forth life by no
> means implied evolution.

But given that ancient Greeks had some rudimentary understanding of
evolution, one can't claim that the Hebrews were so stupid as to be
unable to understand such concepts.

And I am not sure that I would agree with what I see to be an implicit
assumption is true. That assumption is that the Hebrews had to
understand totally what was revealed to them. The Jews didn't
understand the Messianic prophecies. Why do we expect the Hebrews to
have to understand all of what God's words entailed?

> So now it's not just that it doesn't have to be Misner,
> Thorne & Wheeler, it
> doesn't even have to be The Little Golden Book of Science.
> God could easily have given
> elementary statements of the phenomena I mentioned above, but
> he didn't.
> But it's most telling that you omit, & do not respond
> to, my reference the
> aspects of Gen. 1 which, if interpreted as scientific
> descriptions, are just wrong -
> i.e., the sun being formed after the earth & land plants
> before marine animals.

That is why I like the Days of Proclamation view. It takes Genesis 1 and
makes it the preplanning for the unvierse. One can plan things in
different order than the fulfilment or actualization. See

> How did the Hindu scriptures get in here?

Because the Hindus can say exactly parallel things as the Christian.

> I think I asked the direct question earlier. Do you
> think that Whitman's poem
> about Lincoln's death is false?

I think it is irrelevant.
Received on Sun Apr 18 22:47:26 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:47:27 EDT