>> I
>>totally agree that we ought to investigate correlations between the Bible
>>and geology, paleontology, anthropology, etc. However, if we find events
>>in the Bible that steadfastly resist our efforts to tie them in with events
>>verifiable from the sciences, then what do we do? If we decide the Bible
>>has reduced credibility, or that science has reduced credibility because of
>>a failure to be able to correlate the two, we lose. In these sorts of
>>cases it seems to me better to simply admit that we can't correlate
>>Scripture with science.
Glenn responded
>
>I agree up to a point. There are always going to be things within any
>system of thought which we can not solve. It may be that the future holds the
>solution; it may be that there is no solution; or it may be that science or
>the Bible is wrong. The problem I have is that all too easily we take the
>solution that we don't have to worry about the issue because the future
>will show us the solution. I have seen YEC's avoid the problems their views
>have by the "future will save us" approach. Henry Morris wrote of the post
>flood world:
>
I agree. When I recommend admitting that we don't know how to resolve
Scripture and (say) anthropology on some point, I am not advocating letting
up on investigating the resolution. That's what concerns me about the
YEC's: a seeming resignation that future investigation will prove the
assumed resolution. You can't give any proposed resolution more than a
very tentative weight when you have no basis, and you're not a scientist if
you quit looking for the answer.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)