Allan, you are completely correct the way you define things.
However, many people (both naturalist scientists and non-scientific
Christians) believe it EXACTLY the way I stated. I personally know many
of them!!! If we do not recognize that, then all discussion is
fruitless. Call them "phony" if you want but that gets nowhere. They may
be "wrong" viewpoints, but they are in fact the viewpoints which many
people hold to be true. If we refuse to engage the dialog at that level,
then we are just drinking our own bath water. May taste good to us ;-)
Walt
SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002 2:48:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >
> > If you believe that our current NATURALIST science tells the complete
> > truth then you must absolutely reject the first chapter of Genesis as
> > being partially flawed at best.
> >
> > If, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible is infallible, then
> > you have reject the claims of science.
> >
>
> This is a great example of the sort of false dichotomy that causes so many problems.
>
> The first statement is only correct if by "complete truth" you mean a thorough *metaphysical* explanation (which of course science can't provide, though abusers of science like Dawkins might claim otherwise), as opposed to just the science. If you believe the science, that only makes Genesis 1 flawed if you think Genesis 1 is intended to be a scientific text.
>
> Likewise with the second statement. There is only a problem if one insists that Biblical "infallibility" applies not only to the traditional "matters of faith and practice" but also to scientific questions outside the purpose of Scripture. Of course some people do that. Such people were in trouble long before Darwin, since if read that way the Bible teaches that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the waters above the Earth are held back by a solid dome.
>
> These phony either/or frameworks do nothing but harm our prospects for fruitful discussion.
>
> Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 11 2002 - 17:37:48 EST