SENT ON 3/11/02 TO ORIGINATING PARTY ONLY.
This being my first entry into the discussion, please bear with me and
understand that my opinions are based soley on my own understandings and not
those solicited by others.
In response to the statements of Walter Hicks, I would say that in my view
there can in fact be a tie between what Genesis states and science. That is
to say that with our small and simple understanding of the universe we can
begin and over time understand what Gods creation was so long as we keep in
mind that any understanding of the universe we gain must and should
compliment the scriptures and not go against them. To say that there is
evidence of a Big Bang and evolution is not to say that this in itself was
not the effect of creation set forth by God. To say that there can only be
one is true however in so far as God created the universe through a process
he established prior to the creation. When someone begins to create
something we usually take some time to first think of what we wish to create
and for what purpose. We however do not always end up with what we want and
sometimes we fail. God however is omnipotent and is able to foresee beyond
space-time to know in advance the outcomes of anything he wishes to effect
or create. With this in consideration, God was able to create a simple set
of programs (we call them laws of science/nature) with which the creation
would proceed. He understood exactly what the outcome would be and therefore
contrary to some opinions does not need to entervene very often. Scripture
does support this idea in that he gave us free will. Again he gave us rules
and guidlines that if followed we would live in peace and happiness. Some
say our fall from grace already occured through Adam and we now suffer for
that error. I submit that we continue to commit this offense in that we
continually follow our minds and not our soul/heart through the Lord's
guidance. A brief look at Genesis with unbiased eyes would lead one to the
conclusion that it is not coincidental that the days of creation are in the
same order as evolution. Many are beginning to understand the connection.
As for the creation of Adam, the debate seems to be a question of time. If
one can accept that evolution was God's creation, then we must begin to
accept that man did evolve and that the creation of Adam (man) was in facta
soulful act. That is to say that man alreay existed and on day six, God made
their image by giving the most advanced species on the planet a soul. God
has no physical state and therefore to make in his image can only be
spiritual in nature. If God's intent was to create a vessel for the soul
would he not want to give us one that could begin to understand him and his
creation. I would submit that our main purpose in life is to understand and
worship him. This can be aided through scientific understanding of his
creation but must of course rely on our faith in the unknown and acceptance
of his word.
Don Perrett at don.perrett@verizon.net
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of SteamDoc@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:31 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: ASA Perspective
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 13 2002 - 20:56:08 EST