On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:35:31 -0500 "Wendee Holtcamp" <wendee@greendzn.com>
writes:
> All the people Bob quoted below are atheists (I do not know about the
> textbook authors Purees et al). Obviously their theology is getting
> in
> the way of their science -- in the same way that many YECs and others
> sometimes do. Science is an objective method to investigate the way
> things are. Making conclusions based on scientific findings is the
> job
> of each individual. One individual should not tell another individual
> what to believe - whether that is a scientist, pastor, teacher, or
> parent. We can only lay the facts out before others, give them our
> own
> conclusions and allow them to make their own decisions based on
> facts,
> not interpretations.
>
I wish this were true, for it would put full responsibility on each
individual. However, I note that there are very few things that I can
decide on the basis of facts that _I_ know. I have to take the decisions
that many others make and urge upon me on the basis of their
investigations. These is turn are based on a further layer of urgings.
Sometimes we have been lied to; sometimes matters have been fudged to
mislead; some well-intentioned folk have misinformed because they have
been misled. To look at another side of this, if you haven't urged
someone to believe as you do in the redemption provided in Jesus Christ,
you have not indulged in evangelism. Let's face it, on the human level
"making disciples" (Matthew 28:19) is a sales job.
> Unfortunately the world usually doesn't "behave" in this manner, but
> everyone in a teaching position thinks their own opinions or
> understandings are the right ones. I don't think Jesus referred to
> people as sheep for no reason. People are primarily followers, and we
> follow many strangers voices.
>
> My point is that just because these "prominent scientists" are making
> their conclusions of the science of evolution does not mean evolution
> "if true" proves that God doesn't exist or that life is undirected
> etc
> etc. I see the exact same evidence, and believe quite the opposite
> but
> don't have to discard real science (which currently points to the
> validity of evolutionary theory quite strongly) to believe in Jesus
> Christ and the integrity of the entire Bible.
>
> What does teleology mean? You might see that I prefer to use simple
> language (I'm a writer, I have to!) - when we write to the 'lowest
> common denominator' we can all understand! :)
>
The root is _telos_, a Greek word for goal, aim, purpose'; perhaps more
accurately, _teleioo_, the related verb, meaning 'to make perfect, to
complete', and _teleios_, the adjective. So may be understood as the
study of purpose. In general, it is applied to any purposive act. If one
suggests that evolution proceeds deliberately toward greater complexity,
this is teleological talk. If the "progress" is purely accidental, it
probably isn't.
LCD depends on the audience--3-year-olds, high school kids, scientists,
etc.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 19:58:26 EDT