Re: Science and Theology

From: Peter Ruest <>
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 11:28:49 EDT

Don Winterstein wrote (6 May 2004):

> Peter Ruest wrote:
> "...I don't think believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and
> Jacob, and in the Lord Jesus Christ need myths."
> That's myth not in the vulgar sense (roughly equivalent to fairytale)
> but in the sense of a story or model of origins. A literal reading of
> Genesis provided such a myth that was satisfactory to people of the
> Judeo-Christian tradition for many generations.
> I claim everybody needs one. If the traditional one fails, we must come
> up with a revised version. Your own concordant version of Genesis 1
> qualifies.


I agree that the vulgar sense of "myth" (fairytale) is not under
consideration here. And I would concur with your term "model of
origins", but only in the same sense that we use it in science, as a
summary of our temporary opinions of what exists, subject to revision at
any time. But I wouldn't add "story" as a synonym. And your claim that
"everybody needs one" seems to me to suggest that you take it more in
the sense in which modern theologians use the term "myth" (or even
"broken myth"). It is this concept that I am rejecting. I consider my
current "concordant version of Genesis 1" (as you call it) to be a
temporary model summarizing what I at present consider to be the best
interpretation of all available evidence from both science and theology.
I have no _need_ of such a model for my worldview, and my faith is not
at all _dependent_ on it.


Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
Received on Fri May 7 11:30:00 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 07 2004 - 11:30:02 EDT