Re: evolution-digest V1 #1111

John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:21:19 -0600

Glenn: You wrote: "If that is the case, that the Bible has little to say
about PC, then PC is an extra biblical belief system, unrelated to
Scripture at all, just as
baseball, surgery, computers etc are unrelated to Scripture. PC then is
irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the Bible as is baseball or
computers. I fail to see what the point of holding to PC rather than to
raw naked evolution would be. What would be the advantage of believing in
PC?"

Let me address your last two sentences. I more or less agree with what
you have written before them.

The fact that you "fail to see the point" is illustrative to the fact
that you and I come at the origins issue from quite different
perspectives. For me, it is one of academic interest -- for you, I think
-- much more than that.

Take the Flood story, for example. Suppose it were to be -- utterly --
without possibility of doubt -- disproved scientifically. A "good YEC"
might assert, as I suspect Gish et. al. would do, that given this
difference, believe scripture and disbelieve science.

You, however, a scientist, can't do that. As I can not do that. I suspect
that difference would cause you a great deal of turmoil.

For me, I would have little problem with the situation. It is not that I
"disbelieve scripture," but that I study it theologically, not
scientifically. If the Flood story is an allegory, so be it. If it is
literally true, fine. It really does not make much difference to the
point(s) of the story, you see.

Now your second question -- what's the advantage of holding to a PC
position? From a Christian perspective, I can see (for me) none. No more
than loving baseball and deploring basketball. Baseball "makes sense" to
me; basketball does not. But I have a son who loves basketball and that
does not inhibit our friendship! < G >

Why do I hold to PC and not, for example, Howard's excellently thought
out "functional integrity?" Or your particular (also well though out)
synthesis of evolution (TCA) and a fairly literal reading of Genesis
1-11? That's simple; what I know of science, and what I know of God,
leads me to conclude that PC is simply a more reasonable position. But
(1) this is a philosophical position, not a "scientific" one, and (2) it
is always open to change/replacement as I study further. IOW, I don't
identify my PC position with me, Burgy! I think sometimes Steve Jones
(before I stopped reading him) equated his MC position (I never did
really understand it) with himself. That made dialog too difficult to do.

Well -- sorry for the long answer -- I did not have time to send you a
short one.

Burgy

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]