From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 07:52:04 EDT
Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> >Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:42 PM
> >To: Walter Hicks
> >Cc: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
> >Subject: Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)
> >
> >
> >Walt -
> > Though I don't think this approach is the most fruitful,
> >one can simply make the
> >traditional RC argument that the first humans in a theological
> >sense were the first
> >hominids into whom God infused rational souls, & that they then
> >"fell" according to the
> >traditional scenario. So much for Wells.
>
> I will play a bit of a devil's advocacy here. It isn't so much for Wells.
> Wells would argue that the RC approach is not the same as mankind arising in
> 'this ascendant manner' and that such an event is not spoken of in Scripture
> there for it is very ad hoc of those theologians to advocate (or make up)
> this view.
>
> (I am merely playing devils advocate on the abovew)
Messenger's _Evolution and Theology_ (1932) shows that even with the rather
tight constraints on interpretation of Genesis required of RC theologians at that time
there was considerably more leeway for accepting evolution than the statement by Wells
would suggest. That is even more the case today. Messenger's citations & study of the
church fathers on this matter are quite helpful.
Responding here to your comments in a parallel: I have no objections to
Dawkins, e.g., being cited as a scientific expert. I wouldn't even mind if he talked
about theology or biblical interpretation if he knew what he was talking about: One
need not be a Christian to do that. & atheists are free to write about these matters
even if they _don't_ know what they're talking about. The problem is that they tend to
ignore any biblical interpretation &/or theology that isn't straight biblical
literalism, assuming that the latter is the only "real Christianity."
& then you have the grotesque situation of anti-evolutionists rejecting the
views of these scientists about _science_, but then treating their views about
_theology_ as gospel even though they know little about it.
> But for the below I am not:
>
> Walt wrote:
>
> "He was an old time sci-fi person who wrote mediocre fiction and other
> things---- IMO"
>
> Given that Wells is has had much more impact on this world than either you
> or I, I wouldn't be so condescendingly dismissive of him. His science
> fiction is still being sold in book stores long after his death. He wrote a
> very popular history of the world, and was involved in writing a very
> massive book on paleontology and the history of life. I don't think either
> of us has done that.
I don't agree with Walt about Wells as a SF writer. I think much of his SF was
pretty good, though much is rather dated by now. But he was a scientific dilletante:
I've always thought that the ridiculous "Jules" in C.S. Lewis' _That Hideous Strength_
was probably a parody of Wells.
Even more informed SF writers than Wells can do silly things when they try to
pretend to greater scientific knowledge than they have. Heinlein was probably the
greatest SF writer (until he lost the ability to keep his literary pants zipped). But
in his popular essay on antimatter he makes a big deal of saying that he's going to
write down the Dirac equation, tells his readers he knows it's going to look
intimidating &c - & then writes down the wrong equation!
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 08:03:53 EDT