Re: Kerkut

jack syme wrote:
>
> I have thought about this a little bit more, and I think I can clarify my
> position a bit. I have no trouble with giving those with training and
> expertise in an area more weight than those who dont. Quite the contrary, I
> am not an expert in any of these fields, I am a physician. Specifically a
> neurologist, and even more so, I am trained particularly in peripheral
> nervous disorders. I am very comfortable with medicines' sub specialization
> and defer to my colleagues in other fields daily.
>
> I guess the difficulty I have with yours and Dick's response is that I feel
> that you are attacking on of "our own". IMO, the primary issue here is the
> age of the Earth. The reason for that is as follows: YEC claim that the
> Earth is several thousand years old and that God created the entire universe
> in 6 literal days, and they claim that the know this because The Bible tells
> them that. They have reasonably sound arguments to support this view, and
> can point to the The Bible and say
> "see its right here, the Earth is young, there is no doubt." And anyone
> with any reasonable scientific knowledge can hear this and say, how can this
> be? The Earth is clearly old. And would have to either abandon the Bible's
> inerrency, or choose to disagree with the YEC claim about what the Bible
> says.
>
> This is not the case with "how" God created the universe. No YEC'er can
> point to The Bible and claim "see its right here, evolution is false"
> because the Bible is silent on this issue. (They may claim that it is
> incompatible with Christianity, but they are straying into philosophy, and
> away from hermenutics, which is their strength.) Similarly, I think, the
> evidence for evolution is not as compelling as the evidence for the age of
> the universe and the Earth, so the scientist cannot be as dogmatic here, I
> dont think, so there is no great dilemma regarding the mechanism of creation
> as there is with the age of things.

        I don't think I agree with the relative "obviousness" of YEC & anti-evolution.
If you read Gen.1-2 in what I would describe as a naive way, sort of automatically
harmonizing the accounts & ignoring the hints of mediated creation of life in Ch.1, you
seem to have a pretty simply picture of the direct creation of humanity. But how long
ago that is supposed to have happened involves some interpretive options. There are
OECs who reject evolution but who are comfortable with day-age interpretations, gap
theory &c. (I don't think much of those approaches but that's not the point now.)
 
> For this reason, I think that we should be supporting any of the Old
> earthers, and if Dick doesnt like Ross' view because Ross is a progessive
> creationist, and Dick is an evolutionist, well so be it. But, at least Ross
> is out there fighting with the YEC'ers trying to prove that both the Bible,
> and science can agree on an old creation.

        Actually I wasn't trying to zero in on Hugh - though I do agree with Dick's
criticism - but was just taking the opportunity to piggy-back on Dick's comments &
suggest that some theological expertise is needed. I should have made that clearer.
        OTOH, remember that this is a predominantly Christian list whose participants
expect some thrusting & parrying. When I have parishoners who speak highly of Hugh's
books &c I may be mildly critical but I don't jump all over him & try to discredit him.
Generally I try to emphasize the areas - cosmology &c - in which he is an expert.
  
 
> Now having said that, I would like to make one other point. Can you not see
> George, that it is possible, that even if one is highly trained in a field,
> that they cannot, in some instances, see the forest for the trees? Dont you
> think that ones' training can introduce a "bias", and that perhaps one may
> be so deeply entwined in the paradigm they have worked under for years, that
> they cant see the shift as it ocurrs?

        Sure - although I'm not as big on Kuhnian paradigm shifts as some folks. Recall
that I said that a person with advanced theological training is more competent than one
without, "all other things being equal." Sometimes ceteris aren't paribus. There are,
alas, apostates with advanced degrees in theology & biblical studies.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Feb 5 21:19:59 2004