Re: New Book on Science as a Christian Vocation

Ted
I wouldn't call Boyle YEC as there was little evidence for an oldish earth
then. I would see the likes of you and me very much in the tradition of
Boyle and Ussher as both were Christian scholars striving to understand the
world. Ussher gets an unjustifiable bad press, but people like Rudwick and
John Fuller are trying to redress that.

I look forward to your stuff on Hitchcock - one of my favourite Americans. I
would recommend list members to read his Religion of Geology which still has
a freshness today and has much to say to us now.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: "Angus and Vicki Menuge" <menuge@execpc.com>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>;
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: New Book on Science as a Christian Vocation

> To answer Michael's question: geology doesn't feature much (if it all) in
> the book. This is the first time I've seen the other essays--contributors
> did not comment on each other's essays--and the book does not have an
index,
> so I might be missing something. But I am very enthusiastic about the
> essays I have read thus far; I've started with my fellow historians Peter
> Barker and Peter Harrison, and they have not disappointed me. Kurt
> Marquart's essay on philosophy of science also looks quite interesting,
> though I haven't started to read it yet. And Nancy Pearcey will be giving
a
> version of her essay on my campus in the spring.
>
> As for geology, I do understand your concerns about what might be in the
> book, and what might not. As a MSL press, Concordia does exert strong
> editorial guidance on what they publish, and I imagine that anything
> explicitly contrary to a YE position would not pass muster. Boyle was of
> course a YEC, although (as we both know) that has no significance
> historically since virtually every Christian in the 17th century thought
of
> the earth as either 6000 years old or pretty close to that (I include
Newton
> here, despite his allowance that some Genesis "days" were somewhat longer
> than 24 hours). (Michael thinks there were quite a few "gap" theory
people
> in the 17th century, and perhaps he's right, but I will bracket that here.
> Nearly all natural philosophers I've seen thought the creation was very
> recent.) But I say nothing about Boyle's view of the earth's age, it just
> wasn't relevant to the subject. Although I do not agree with all aspects
of
> Concordia's policies, they have every right to determine what is suitable
> for their audience. Just as I wish they were more open to modern natural
> history, so I wish that Scientific American were more open to Christian
> perspectives. But pigs don't fly.
>
> As for Hitchcock, I've written on him in the past and might write very
> extensively on him in the future (I've been collecting his books and other
> writings for several years with an eye on that). A study of Hitchcock
would
> be fascinating, but I agree that Concordia might have reservations about
> publishing it--so I'll look elsewhere if/when the time comes. In the
> meantime, I'll give Concordia credit for publishing an interesting book on
> an important, often overlooked subject; and a book that lots of ordinary
> Christians will read. It has some ideas I don't agree with, but no one
will
> attribute to me anything I didn't say myself.
>
> Finally, I've asked Concordia to send a review copy to PSCF and also to
> Science & Christian Belief. If you're interested in reviewing it,
Michael,
> you might look into it...
>
> Merry Christmas to all,
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 8 10:56:56 2004