See my comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Cc: "Don Perrett" <don.perrett@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: What are the odds?....Or, a great and Mighty God
> Don Perrett writes
>
> >I have said that science should not contradict the Bible.
>
> Very deep, Don. The YECs realize this. The OECs realize
> this. The PNs realize this. Atheists take this position.
>
> Alas, only the liberals ;-) remain.
>
> Jim
>
I'm not certain whether other readers of this listserv have labeled me as
one of the 'liberals' (that dirty word in the rhetoric of the culture wars).
But whether anyone thinks I am or not, I want to say that statements like "I
have said that science should not contradict the Bible" beg some questions:
(1) Do you mean something like, "The Bible (or to be more precise, my
interpretation of it and my hermeutical assumptions about interpreting it)
is (are) to be the final abriter of what constitutes valid scientific
theory, knowledge, data, etc."?
(2) Does this mean something like "the Bible properly understood and the
discoveries of science properly understood should not contradict one
another"? (which begs further questions)
(3) If, for example, I take the text of Isa. 40:22a literally and
recognize that the prophet is modeling the earth as a circular rather than a
spherical body (pace Morris, Sarfati, and all the other YECs who falsely
claim that the word "chugh" literally means "sphere" when in fact, yes,
fact, it literally means "a circle drawn with a compass" [as Blake
recognized], and that they are reading sphericity into the text and not out
of the text), then am I to be accused of claiming that science contradicts
the Bible? Or of claiming that the Bible (the prophet) has spoken an
untruth; but if one thing in the Bible is not true then how can I trust
anything else the Bible says, especially God's promise of salvation? Or am I
allowed to think that the "scientific models" of the ancient Semitic peoples
are as provisionally true as the scientific models of our own time, and that
God expects us to be smart enough to figure that out for ourselves?
(Unless, of course, our corrupt reason cannot figure that out, evil that
we are--but if that's true, why should we trust any of our conclusions,
whether in science or in biblical interpretation? How can we ever be
certain of *anything*?)
(4) If someone like myself reverences Gen. 1 and is convinced that it is
a glorious and powerful theologically true hymn about the Creation and not
"a straightforward, historical, and scientific account of how God did it,"
then are we "explaining away" the Bible (or any of the other disparaging
accusations that are leveled against "liberals" and their fellow travelers)
and "not believing what God says"?
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 22:01:01 EST