RE: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts)

From: Don Perrett <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 05:07:06 EDT

MessageGeorge said:

Excerpt: I think it's likely that the biblical writer was picturing what
happened on the 3d day as essentially a speeded up version of a phenomenon
that of course he was familiar with, plants growing out of the ground.
That's the way St. Ephrem seems to have understood this. So if you want to
count "plants grow out of the ground" as a scientific observation, I'll
grant this, & it's relevant to a theological discussion of evolution. But
it's not an elementary description of biological evolution in anything like
the modern sense.

While I do hold to the idea that Gen1 is revelation, I will admit that if
one with no prior scientific knowledge and just good common sense were to
contemplate the beginning, it might come to a similar set/sequence as Gen1.
Observation alone would give at least the following:

Man lives on animals, so animals came before man.
Animals live on plants, so plants came before animals.
Fish live on plants, so plants came before fish.
Birds live on plants, so plants came before birds.
All life relies on water, so water must have come before any organic life.
Water can only be gathered onto the surface if the earth existed before
water (on earth).
The earth is rotating around the sun and therefore the sun must have come
first (yes, not everyone in ancient times thought the other way).
Well the stars are so far away that caveman just can't really figure that
one out, so he just says, "He also made stars".

Is Genesis, as some say, just allegory, ancient scientific understanding, or
just a guess at creation? If it is ancient knowledge then can anyone
explain why a person would deduce that fish and birds came before land
animals?

Point is, I do agree that much can be counted as just observations. But,
whether this is modern science or not, it would at the very least appear to
be the scientific understanding of that time. If so, then it would seem
that using logic, observation and deduction to understand the creation has
and will always be a part of who we are.

For those who say that Genesis and creation are not essential to religious
belief and practice, I challenge them to show a faith based religion that
does not make some attempt to express how "god" (who's ever) created the
universe. All religions do. Why because it is an "ESSENTIAL" part of
discovering his plan for us. If not then WHY are we here? The only
conclusion is that in order to understand ourselves and our creator, we must
understand his creation, which includes everything around us. So scientific
present or past may not matter, but science nonetheless is important to
theology.

I won't go into ethical issues of certain scientific practices, but science
must also have limits. Gaining knowledge of God's creation is necessary,
and I believe required of us. But let us not practice what we have learned
until it IS known.

As for "picturing what happened" , this is why I believe it is revelation.
Do you believe that God reveals and has revealed in the past? If not then
how can anyone believe that Christ for foretold. If God does give us
revelations, then is it not possible that God revealed his creative act to
someone? Perhaps in a dream/vision, as most are revealed. And if this
"someone" saw the dream but not giving the words with which to express it,
how would we expect them to convey it? Most likely using their own words to
describe what they saw as best possible. If so then would this mean that
the revelation was not real, or that the revelation did not provide an
accurate and detailed account of an event? Whether one communicates God's
intent properly, or whether it is understood the way it was intended, does
not change HIS intent. In the end, we must have "faith" that God has
revealed all that he desires to, even if for the moment. God does hold back
many things, as stated in scripture, but he also reveals more than we see.

Don Perrett
Received on Tue Apr 5 05:09:28 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 05:09:30 EDT