Studying the past from present evidence is forensic science. In the case of
a crime, for instance, the prosecution sets up a scenario of past events on
the basis of the existing evidence and seeks further evidence to verify that
chosen scenario. This is common also to the question of origins. If the
Bible does not say something explicitly, then one has to assume something
and see how the facts and Scripture jive with the original assumption. I do
not see anything wrong with this procedure. The question is to realize that
all such assumptions or presuppositions are on equal footing.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
To: MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil <MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:10 AM
Subject: Imposing our theology on Scripture
>At 09:22 AM 12/8/99 -0500, MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil wrote citing C.S.
>Lewis:
>
>
>> "Now Theology is like a map. Merely learning and thinking about
>>Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting
than
>>the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God:
they
>>are only a kind of map. But that map is based on hundreds of people who
>>really were in touch with God - experiences compared with which any
thrills
>>or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very
elementary
>>and very confused.
>
>One of my concerns in this area is that we christians have a tendency to
>replace the Scripture with our theology. A case in point is the very
>widespread assumption that the Bible rules out evolution. It is an
>assumption of a large part of the ID crowd (otherwise they wouldn't be
>anti-evolutionists); it is an assumption of the Young-earth creationists.
>This position is derived from the idea that God must miraculously and
>instantly create all the animals either in six days in the case of the YECs
>or over a period of time in the case of most ID folk. This is then imposed
>upon the Scripture to make it say something that it really doesn't say--it
>is imposed on the 'after their kind' statements of Genesis 1 to make them
>read 'animals reproduce after their kind' when in fact the Scritpure
>nowhere contains that statement. The Bible actually says, 'let the Land
>[subject] bring forth animals [object] after their kind' If anything this
>statement proclaims the reproductive capacities of land rather than that of
>animals.
>
>And interestingly, the Bible never actually says that God created
>'instantly' either. That is our theology running amok. When the Bible says,
>God said,'Let there be light' and it was so. It doesn't say 'and it was so
>INSTANTLY'. Our theology adds the 'INSTANTLY' which then leads us to
>misread the 'after their kind' statements. There could have been lots of
>time between God's statement and the fulfillment. Or does our theology
>require that God be in a hurry?
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution