Re: Correction! Re: Article on two books in latest PSCF

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 18:02:31 EDT

I am glad you do not agree with Tyler who makes a lot of inaccurate statements on geology. To say(b) that most of the arguments for long timescales are paradigm-driven rather than scientific; is just plain wrong and contradicted by the slow development of the geological timescale starting from a young earth in c1660 and slowly moving to our present position.

The word paradigm is used to give some kind of plausibility to nonsense arguments. I prefer the word parasite as YEC is parasitic on real science.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: janice matchett
  To: Ted Davis ;
  Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:19 PM
  Subject: Correction! Re: Article on two books in latest PSCF

  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."

    Religious and philosophical inputs to geochronology by David J. Tyler

Received on Wed Sep 21 18:07:35 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 18:07:35 EDT