RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 07:28:24 EST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 6:16 AM
> To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "'Randy Isaac'"
> <rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:35 PM
> Subject: RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Chris

> OK, so can we take this as an official statement that Glenn
> Morton's method
> of determining how much historical data there is early
> Genesis is "personal
> whimsy"?

And where is your personal crystal ball which gives you a god-like view
of the world, George? Two can play at that game. You can't PROVE how
much history or lack there of is in the account. Neither can I. Both of
us, indeed ANYONE constructing a theology balances many different
competing issues. So don't sound so high and mighty that you KNOW the
truth and all others are wrong. You are beginning to sound like a YEC
here.

>
> I sort of thought that study of the nature of the text
> (internal structure
> &c), study of the world views held in that culture &
> surrounding ones, & of
> course non-textual data (archaeology &c) might be able to
> tell us something.

Tells us something but if it gave us an irrefutable answer, there
woudn't be the disagreement which currently exists. You don't seem to
understand the assumptions you have to make to come to the conclusions
you do. Maybe you should study epistemology a bit more.

>
> Lest we get too far from the main topic: I would very much
> like to see
> conservative Christians come to a better understanding of
> scripture & its
> relationship with science, realize the obstacles in the way
> of that goal, &
> take seriously the dangers of continued infatuation of those
> Christians with
> anti-evolution stuff. But I am not prepared to accept an
> approach to the
> problem that involves telling them things that aren't true
> because that's
> what they want to hear.

And I would like more liberal Christians to realize that they don't
behave the same when it comes to knowledge of the world as they do with
knowledge in theology. You would not have a big discussion about how
much truth there is in V= IR. If V didn't equal IR you would say the
equation is false and move on.But you have to have such a discussion
when it comes to Theology which should, in and of itself be telling.

 But the liberal approach, when finding out that V equals not IR is to
say, it is still true, deeply meaningful and glorifies God. It is a poem
which reveals the nature of God! And then they would question the
intelligence of anyone who dares say "it isn't really true". You all
save Genesis by making it true regardless of how false it really is.
The YECs chose to make Genesis true by making science false. Both of
you refuse to ever realize how idiotic it is to say something is true
when it ain't true.

The only way out of these two very strange approaches is to find an
interpretation which matches science and which doesn't force the Bible
into a position of falsehood (while we at the same time claim it is
really really really cross our hearts hope to die, true). That is what
I have tried to do--provide that third way.
Received on Fri Apr 1 07:28:49 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 07:28:49 EST