>Let us suppose further, for the sake of argument, that, all things being
>equal, the interpretation of Genesis in terms of six ordinary days of
>creation around 6000 years ago is somewhat more likely than any other
>interpretation--including one which sees the days as a sequential
>ordering of God's creative acts of establishing a covenant order to the
>cosmos over a period of indeterminate length. That is to say, the
>interpretation of Scripture in terms of a young earth is more aesthetically
>satisfying, accounts for all the biblical data with the least amount of
>hermeneutical "tweaking", provides the most coherent reading of the whole
>of Scripture, and so on.
>
(snip)
>Let us say that the interpretation of the data of natural revelation in
>terms of an old earth is more likely. That is, it is more aesthetically
>satisfying, account for all the natural data with the least amount of
>scientific "tweaking", provides the most coherent reading of the whole of
>the scientific and historical data, and so on. In short, we apply the
>same hermeneutical standards to natural revelation as to special
>revelation.
>
>Now we find ourselves in the following position. We have at least two
>interpretations of Scripture of which one (young earth) is more likely
>than another (a earth of indeterminate age). We also have at least two
>interpretations of natural revelation of which one (very old earth) is
>more like than another (young earth).
>
>My question for you is this: How do the probabilities of the Scriptural
>interpretations affect the probabilities of the scientific
>interpretations and vice versa?
The point many of us on this list have been making is that the _best_
interpretation of scripture, independent of any extrabiblical data, is an
historico-literary one in which chronology isn't the issue. Thus, the best
scriptural interpretation and the best scientific theory are not in
conflict at all. This is of course not to deny that some very important
theological issues are raised by an evolutionary understanding of natural
history (as George Murphy has pointed out previously).
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/