Re: How Did Gentry Get Published in PSCF?

Roger Olson wrote:

>
>Why would "biblical reasons" have to exclude a wealth of geological and
>biological (and IMHO astrophysical) data over against a particular
>interpretation of Scripture?   Perhaps I'm just very dumb, but when I
>read Genesis 1-11 in English, I really can't say with any degree of
>certainty what the author(s) meant to say.  Ergo, to choose an
>interpretative hill to stand and die upon in the face of (apparent?)
>overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary simply boggles my weak mind.
>

It seems like this is much closer to the heart of the issue.
It seems to be mostly a grounded in how best to remain strong
in our faith. All of us do want to hear at the end "well done"
if we are Christians, and I cannot think that anyone would
disagree with that. But how best do you accomplish that?

One way is to take this stand of the Bible as the "word of
God" (whatever that means), and take a more or less literalist
position on what is written there. Naturally, any challenge
on that "Word of God" notion (as propounded by certain individuals
who have already infused a fair amount of their own interpretation
into it anyway) is akin to diluting that "Word". If you were
raised on a farm, there's a good chance your dad depended on God's
promise. If you were raised in a church family, you would also
feel some pressure there. When you have many people you respect
towering over you, it would be kind of hard to say, well, err
I don't agree.

Unfortunately, we know what the consequences of this position
are generally.

The alternative strategy is largely what appears to go on
mostly here where we try to find some way to harmonize
science and religion in some tangible way: either by
a form a concordist approach or in reading more from
the message (or theology) and less to the specific details.
I personally find the harmonization and interpretation
approaches used here more appealing, but obviously, all
of us who take this position are rather uncomfortable
with making blanket assertions like "THE BIBLE IS TRUE".
Yes, it is "true" but.....

So you see, when we come before people who assert the
above, and we have to say well.... well.... well...,
it is very hard. It is more like politics than an
issue of science. Scientist have a very hard time
saying something is 100% sure. Our caution (which
is well warented), is lost on the average population
who just want to hear "the facts" and see science
in some kind of binary discipline.

On top of that, when we sin, we only amplify YEC folk's
preconceived notions about our weak faith. It may be
hypocritical on their part to judge this way, but it
only adds to our own troubles as setting a better
example of what faith is about. I think this is how
you need to see the issue.

>
>For example, how can a cosmologist square billions of light years of
>distance with a 6-10Ka Cosmos, without some sort of ad hoc like the
>Humphreys' model? How can such a person justify Ga-radiometric ages on
>Earth and the solar system with such a model?

Beats me!

>This information on Pitts is simultaneously very interesting and very
>depressing to me, very close to creating a crisis of faith.
>

Hang in there! Your job is to teach, and the teachers
are the ones who will be judged more harshly. That is
what you need to remember. Make yourself better with
what is good in YEC folk, and let you light shine in
the valley of darkness.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Thu Dec 9 20:16:27 2004