>Science does not have the authority that the Bible does, so why should a YEC -- or anyone else -- take such a flawed activity as warranting greater belief that the teaching of the Bible?<
>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
My response would be twofold. One point is that popular advocates of YEC frequently claim that their scientific claims must be considered authoritative. Thus, they are equally guilty of making other things authoritative. As science, these claims are worthless, and should not be relied upon, nor should anyone pointing out the flaws of these claims be demonized. In fact, pointing out these problems helps any honest advocate of a YEC position by helping him reject bad arguments and focus on something else..
Secondly, the teaching of the Bible reflects our flawed interpretation as well. Although the basic principles are plain enough, many details can be difficult and misinterpreted, as even Peter admitted.
The challenge is to convey that I am taking the Bible as authoritative. My question regarding the duration of creation is what did the Spirit intend in inspiring Moses to write of seven days? I believe that it is plausible that the original intent of the inspired text was not to describe specific time intervals. To label non-YEC interpretations as inherently wrong is to assert one's infallibility. Yet, at the same time, it is quite true that many people accept old earth views because they are common knowledge and the Bible is at most secondary.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 17:18:39 EST