I had written:
> DT>There has been a long tradition in Christian circles of adopting
> >the "Two Book" approach. This has treated God's revelation in the
> >Scriptures as a separate and autonomous category of knowledge,
> >distinct from God's revelation in the book of nature. This has been
> >the justification for an essentially "autonomous" science among large
> >sections of the Christian community. Ham is popularising the serious
> >objections made against the Two-Book approach. The alternative is to
> >present all knowledge as a harmonious whole, with God as the source.
> >This is not to say that the Bible speaks about everything, but that
> >the foundations of knowledge are to be found in Scripture.
Steve replied:
> This is a one-sided Baconian view of the "Two-Book approach", ie. a
> "separate but equal" apartheid. For most of my Christian life I have
> followed Ramm's "Two-Book approach" which views Scripture and nature
> as *complementary*:
Yes, it was the Baconian view I was discussing. You could say it is
"one-sided". It was part of a consistent attempt to "free" science
from metaphysics, religious dogma and deductive approaches to
developing knowledge. It is the approach that, in my opinion, has
done great harm to the Christian scholarly tradition.
It is perfectly possible to refer to the two-books concept as a
metaphor, without the overtones of human autonomy in "natural
philosophy". I have no problems with this - as long as it does not
promote confusion in people's minds. Ramm's commitment to
complementarity is fine. However, even here, those Christians who
follow the Baconian "Two Book" approach use complementary in a a way
akin to your phrase "separate but equal apartheid". These folk are
not really interested in "harmonisation" - as, by definition, there
cannot be any possibility of conflict. It leads to a significant
weakening in understanding Genesis 1-11 as history, and there is
great fuzziness about Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Flood and Babel.
These views are very influential here in the UK - Victor Pearce, who
you often refer to, is not representative of the leadership of
Christians in Science.
For these leaders, complementarity is often presented in terms of
different kinds of answers to questions. Science tells us "how",
whereas Scripture tells us "why". Again, whilst there's nothing
wrong with this as a broad-brush explanation of
complementarity, it is misguided to insist on a strict division. For
example, if we want to know how man originated, we look to science to
provide us with answers. Scripture has nothing to say about the mode
of man's origin - but much to inform us about why he is like he is.
This is an approach to complementarity I cannot endorse.
I hope this explains why I keep coming back to this point!
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***