From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:50:10 EDT
Howard asked (while I was away)
>I'm wondering now if this also represents the views of persons on this list who take a similar concordist approach -- arguing that the the results of the empirical natural sciences provide support for the Bible, when properly interpreted.<
While not taking a concordist approach, I would note that the Bible and empirical natural sciences do agree well when they actually are talking about the same thing. Such matters are generally in the background in the Bible, e.g., incidental mentions of fauna and flora of the region or cultural details confirmable by archaeology. In contrast, such details in the Book of Mormon are entirely contrary to the scientific evidence.
Of course, this only provides somewhat corroborative evidence, rather than proof, of the reliability of the theologically significant aspects.
Also, the passages relating to natural history often contain statements that are not strictly scientifically accurate. While perfectly legitimate as everyday language descriptions, they do not provide evidence of supernatural revelation of scientific facts. Rather, they suggest that the authors were recording things reliably in light of their own idioms and knowledge.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:41:30 EDT