On Mon, 7 Aug 1995 14:44:19 -0500 you wrote:
BH>we need to keep in mind that what seems beyond the capabilities of
>science today may be commonplace tomorrow.
Then again, they may not? :-)
BH>Since the Bible is about who God is and how
>man relates to Him, I'm quite confident that developments in physics,
>chamistry and biology are peripheral to the concerns of Scripture and
>should not be viewed as threats by Christians.
I agree that developments in science should not be regarded as
threats.
LH?>..I see little reason to embrace the ppogressive -creation- with-
supernatural-interventions model for plants and animals.
BH>Agreed. What you are in essence doing if you invoke acts of God is
taking
>some piece of nature and building a barrier around it and labeling it
>revelation.
Of course this assumes it was strictly "nature". This has not yet been
demonstrated.
BH>Then Christians who hold that view have a vested interested in
>suppressing further investigation that might require them to change their
>view.
There is no evidence that progressive creationists suppress further
scientific investigation. If they did, it would be wrong. All truth is
God's truth.
BH>Because after all, you are now dealing with revelation. And
>changing revelation rightly makes anyone who is a serious Christian
>uncomfortable.
Revelation is not changing. What might need changing is our
*interpretation* of revelation. I still think the PC model is the
best explanation of Bible and science. But then, that might be
my faulty interpretation! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------