RE: [asa] Believing Scripture but Playing by Sciences Rules

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Tue Feb 13 2007 - 11:04:25 EST

I suppose I am still stuck on the notion of how a scientific development
of life on Earth "allows" sin to enter into animals that henceforth
became humans. Note that the notion of sin has no place in a scientific
theory. Does that mean that something or someone from "outside" stepped
in and added that element in the animal world to "change" some primates
into humans? If so, then, how do we study the history of the universe
and know when and how that someone from "outside" stepped in and made
some changes in the time-development of the universe? Do we minimize
that "interference" or maximize it? Who is to tell what occurred in the
past and how to tell?




From: [] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:24 AM
To: Terry M. Gray;
Subject: Re: [asa] Believing Scripture but Playing by Sciences Rules


Thank you for this post, Terry. Such honesty about the acceptability of
having a divided mind about evolution is refreshing to hear.

Can I ask you if you think 'human evolution' is a question/topic that
should be asked/raised solely in natural sciences or elsewhere in the
academy as well?


One small quibble would be to point out that neither science nor
scripture 'speak for themself.' They are interpreted by human beings (or
really clever animals, in the former case), thus the terms 'single
hermeneutic' and 'double hermenuetic.' E.g. P. Clayton says: "even the
natural sciences are hermeneutical."
( (I
enjoyed the poke at process philosophers near the end.)





Note: Clayton's book on Arthur Peacocke, "A Naturalistic Christian Faith
for the 21st Century" comes out this year, in case anyone here might be
interested in the issue of Christian Naturalism or Naturalistic



"Terry M. Gray" <> wrote:

        Ok, ok. I confess!
        So I too believe in and strive for a unity of knowledge. But I
        when it comes to human evolution, have a somewhat divided mind.
        called it "cognitive dissonance". I see nothing wrong with the
        scientific arguments for human evolution. I am also convinced
that scripture teaches a special creation of Adam and Eve (perhaps not
necessarily their bodies). On the surface (and well under the
        surface) those two views are at odds with each other. I've
        over the years with you all and with the churches that I've been

        associated with to find a suitable solution that satisfies both.
        yet to hear of one (sorry to both Glenn and Dick--you've yet to
        convince me). Thus, I remain in this state of having a divided
        on this--I let the science speak for itself (and I fully believe
        my science and it's methodology is rooted in a Christian
        and I let the scripture speak for itself (of course, within a
        theological and exegetical tradition that I also am convinced is



Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to
Yahoo! Answers. <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 13 11:04:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 13 2007 - 11:04:33 EST