Lest I be taken out of context any further, let me point out that I
selected two extreme points of view and presented what I believe to be
their logical consequences. I still stand behind those statements.
Neither viewpoint do I endorse, although some on this list do. I think
that the resulting logic is flawed.
I also believe that there is a tie between science and genesis and that
genesis one is not an ancient parable, story, theology or metaphor.
But I'm just a dumb engineer/physicist.
Walt
Don Perrett wrote:
>
> 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
-- =================================== 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 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 11:40:36 EST