Re: Poetic Science

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 07:50:36 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: Poetic Science"

    Don Perrett wrote:

    > Poetry of Joyce Kilmer
    > Trees and Other Poems
    > To add to the concept of science text vs. literary license. I submit the
    > following.
    >
    > Trees
    >
    > (For Mrs. Henry Mills Alden)
    >
    > I think that I shall never see
    > A poem lovely as a tree.
    >
    > A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
    > Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;
    >
    > A tree that looks at God all day,
    > And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
    >
    > A tree that may in Summer wear
    > A nest of robins in her hair;
    >
    > Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
    > Who intimately lives with rain.
    >
    > Poems are made by fools like me,
    > But only God can make a tree.
    >
    > While this poem in no way was intended to be a factual scientific text to
    > describe a tree, it can be proven scientifically that a tree does in fact
    > have it's roots(hungry mouth) in the ground(earth's breast). It is also a
    > "fact" that trees stand high up, closer to God(per se) than we. Also fact,
    > birds do land and live in trees. Fact: trees do get snowed on and
    > requires(intimately lives) rain. And just as anyone can write a poem, only
    > God could inspire the Bible.
    >
    > Point: Language, culture, history, science does not change the fact that
    > while the Bible was not intended to be a science book, it has and will
    > continue to be proven by science and historians alike. This is all the more
    > reason to be in wonder of God and how he is able to speak through us using
    > our own words but speaking the truth and "fact".

            Well, no. A trees has no "mouth," "hair," or "bosom" or eyes with
    which to "look at God." The earth has no "breast." & one doesn't compare
    poems with trees by the ways they look.
            & if I left it at that I would rightly be criticized for being totally
    insensitive to poetry & indeed to language itself. The poem connveys some
    truth about the world & about ourselves but it is not a scientific document and
    an attempt to "harmonize" it with a text on botany would just result in
    silliness. _A fortiori_, an attempt to interpret the true & authoritative text
    of Gen.1 as scientifically correct by pretending that the days are geological
    epochs &c is a waste of time.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 22 2002 - 07:48:34 EST