glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 06:00 PM 1/16/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > 1) Glenn's closing paragraph is correct & important but I think it's an
> >overstatement to say that Genesis 1 "indicates evolution." It would be
> more accurate to
> >say that with its language about mediated creation it is "open to an
> evolutionary
> >interpretation."
>
> A quibble. You keep saying this but I don't agree. Since the scientific
> evidence indicates evolution, and since God's truth is one (not dualistic)
> and since the Bible is God's Word, and should be truth, how in the world
> can you say it doesn't indicate evolution. THe logic requires it.
Does Genesis then "indicate" ~25% helium abundance from the big bang?
The "logic" is precisely the same & in fact leads to the ultimate conclusion that
all true science is "indicated by" (& not just compatible with) the Bible. But the
fact that the Bible is God's Word doesn't mean that it says everything true that
can be said.
& this isn't a quibble. Your claim weakenes the cedibility of your arguments -
& in fact the arguments of all of us who try to make the point that Genesis 1 is "open
to" evolution.
> PC doesn't generally acknowledge mediate creation.
You lost me. PC? Political correctness. Pierre Curie?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 16 2000 - 21:42:01 EST