From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 12:58:28 EDT
Walter:
You would do well to read Richard Bube's 1995 book _Putting it all
together: seven patterns for relating science and Christian faith_. You
outline only two options. Bube very clearer outlines seven approaches and
describes their strengths and weaknesses. It is a very good book. In the
end, he concludes that a complementary approach rather than an either/or
approach is best. Faith (more accurately theology) and natural science
often APPEAR in conflict only because they use different modes
("languages", if you will) to decribe the same unified reality. The
descriptions are in conflict, even thought the two are both correct in
communicating their intended purpose. My "Lesson of Riddles" essay in the
December 2000 (Vol 52, 4) issue of PSCF explains complementarity.
Sincerely,
Douglas
Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@minds To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
pring.com> cc: Jay Willingham <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>, ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent by: Subject: Re: RATE
asa-owner@lists.c
alvin.edu
10/02/03 11:27 AM
George Murphy wrote:
>
>
> A bit of an overstatement! Please note what I said here:
"Simply saying 'decay
> rates speeded up a lot during the creation week or the flood' is no
theory at all. It's
> just the "It's a miracle" claim again." I.e., whether or not one
believes that
> miracles have occurred, an appeal to miracle is not a scientific theory.
(Yes, this is
> simply a statement of MN.) & since a miracle, as usually understood in
such
> discussions, makes it possible for anything at all to happen, other
aspects of a theory
> which _requires_ a miracle become irrelevant: Natural processes + a
miracle = a
> miracle, just as X + infinity = infinity. (Again, this is one reason why
Humphreys'
> cosmological model was worthless.)
>
> What I've said here is the point of the well-know "Then a miracle
occurs"
> cartoon. The caption accurately reflects the attitude of the scientific
community toward
> such theories. "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."
>
> Furthermore:
>
> 1) Christians should, at a minimum, take seriously claims for
miraculous
> occurences if they are spoken of in scripture. But the Bible says
nothing about speeded
> up rates of radioactive decay.
>
> 2) I have never said that "miracles" don't occur." Please see
my letter in the
> Dec.'99 Perspectives in which I correct the notion that the resurrection
is the only
> miracle I will accept. What I _have_ said is:
> a. Because scripture contains more than straight historical
narrative, not all
> stories of miraculous events need be read as accounts of historical
phenomena, and
> b. When unusual and amazing events _did_ occur, it is not
necessarily the case
> that they must be understood as having been beyond the capacity of
creaturely agents.
> I.e., the question is not simply "Can miracles occur?" but "How are
miracles to be
> understood?"
>
> 3) Granted that miracles have occurred, a tendency to multiply
miracles is, for
> several reasons, unhealthy. Again I quote C.S. Lewis' dictum from
another context:
> "One magician is better than two magicians."
>
>
It seems to me that there are two competing viewpoints that can be examined
without the
usual rancor towards ?YECs?.
Viewpoint number 1:
God revealed to us in the Bible the essential features of His creation. God
would not lie
and what the Bible says may be read in a straightforward fashion. Clearly
it leads one to
conclude that creation is very recent (few thousand years) and was formed
as we see it
today. (Omphalos is one option.)
Now science ? or I should say scientists, since science cannot talk ? say
things that
conflict with this. Since God would not lie, then there must be some errors
in science and
we should search to find them.
Some people put forth false scientific beliefs and we should censure them
for making
Christians look bad. However, it is indeed fair to put scientific theories
to the
falsifiability test. If there is data to disprove the universality of a
scientific notion,
then it must be taken seriously. A scientific theory must be right 100% of
the time ? not
?most? of the time.
Viewpoint number 2:
God revealed to us in nature many details of His creation. God does not lie
so what we see
is real. Foo on Omphalos -- that makes God out to be liar. (Note that this
is a
philosophical statement, not a scientific one.)
Rather than take a literal interpretation of the Bible, one should assume
that science is
correct and the Bible must be reinterpreted to conform to what science
says.
Some obvious things (IMO):
1.) Omphalos yields the correct answer for everybody. Even Glenn Morton?s
oil is created in
situ so that he has a job drilling for oil.
2.) Neither YEC leaders, nor the average ASA member will accept this
compromise position.
Consequently, the fight continues.
3.) It does not appear to me that either side is willing to reach out a
hand to see if
differences can be resolved. Rather there is just raving on both sides
accusing the other of
bad will. Perhaps both are right, since this is often the case in polarized
situations ? and
scientists are no exception.
IMO
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 13:04:28 EDT