Correction! Re: Article on two books in latest PSCF

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 14:19:32 EDT

NOTE: Sorry for the confusion - please disregard my post below. YEC
Tyler does not speak for me - I accidently copied and pasted the wrong
quote. I'll post the correct one later since I've used up my quota for
posts today.

~ Janice

At 01:39 PM 9/21/2005, janice matchett wrote:
>>At 12:55 PM 9/21/2005, Ted Davis wrote:
>
>>Two years ago I participated in a conference on the history of the
>>metaphor of "two books" at the well known scientific conference center in
>>Erice, Sicily. (Talk about a place to hold a conference--2500 feet above
>>the Mediterranean, breathtaking views from all over the quaint medieval
>>town.) There I met Fr Guiseppe Tanzella-Nitti, an astronomer and
>>theologian who teaches at the pontifical university in Rome. He gave a
>>terrific paper, "The Two Books Prior to the Scientific Revolution," and I
>>asked him to submit it to PSCF even though it has already been published
>>elsewhere in the meantime (in Annales Theologici, the journal of his
>>department).
>>
>>I cannot recall seeing a clearer, more accurate, and more comprehensive
>>treatment of this important topic. Anyone care to discuss it here? ~ ted
>
>
>### This perspective speaks for me:
>
>".....From these historical perspectives, it is concluded:
>
>(a) that Flood geology models must be sought which do justice to the
>evidences for a significant geologic history;
>(b) that most of the arguments for long timescales are paradigm-driven
>rather than scientific;
>(c) that a thoroughly Christian worldview is crucial to the development of
>a more reliable understanding of geologic evidences, and this will require
>the abandonment of the "double revelation" approach to knowledge.
>
>It is suggested that whilst conclusions (a) and (b) are of direct
>relevance to Bible-believing students of geology, conclusion (c) is
>relevant to all Christians concerned about the scientific enterprise. What
>is to be made of statements like this from Marston and Forster (1989)?
>"We would, then, defend the classical Baconian approach, which was rooted
>in earlier Christian ideas and has shaped the whole of Christian and
>scientific thinking on relationships of science and theology" (p.268).
>They are right that the Baconian approach has been enormously influential,
>but if the thesis of this paper is correct, and the Baconian approach does
>not represent a robust methodology for scholarly Christian work, an urgent
>need for reformation lies before us."
>
>Source
>Religious and philosophical inputs to geochronology by David J. Tyler
>http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs080.html
>
>Janice
Received on Wed Sep 21 14:20:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 14:20:31 EDT