Re: ASA Perspective

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 18:06:44 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: ASA Perspective"

    Michael Roberts wrote:
    >
    > What is current naturalist science?

    The material that is presented on this listserve about evolution or what
    may be found on origins.org.

    > >
    > > If, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible is infallible, then
    > > you have reject the claims of science.
    > This is sheer nonsense, over the last 400 years or more many have believed
    > both the claims of science and the infallibility of the Bible. I am one, so
    > are most in the ASA (if not all) and in Christians in Science and the group
    > for convicts down under (sorry Jon). The vast majority reputable
    > evangelicals in the 19th century eg Warfield Hodge, Sedgwick, Hitchcock et

    To which I say "poppycock". You can make anything "infallible" if you
    just reinterpret the Bible every time that it does not hold water -- and
    call it theology. Reality is that the Bible is inspired writing but it
    does, in fact, have errors within it. Where does the Bible itself claim
    to be infallible?

    Walt

    >
    ===================================
    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 - 18:05:41 EST