From: Steven M Smith (smsmith@usgs.gov)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 19:34:03 EDT
This post contains replies to both Jay Willingham and Michael Roberts
Jay wrote in response to one of my 3 points:
>> 2) As has been noted in other posts, current science is a fluid medium
where ideas are proposed, argued, provisionally accepted, and sometimes
overturned based on new data ... hopefully asymptotically approaching
reality but never reaching it. There is a danger in tying interpretations
of Bible verses to current geologic theories - when current theories change
then the Bible is often used to defend the discarded science. One only
needs to look at literalist or concordist approaches to geology and
scripture from past centuries to see how silly it appears when Bible verses
are tied to ideas long defunct (e.g. Burnet's _Sacred Theory of the Earth_
1681, Whiston's _A New Theory of the Earth_ 1696, Hugh Miller's _The
Testimony of the Rocks_ 1857). I believe that some modern examples like
Henry Morris' _ The Bible and Modern Science_ (continuously in print under
various titles since 1946) will also fare poorly. <<
> Changes in accepted facts from which hypotheses are derived indeed make
past applications of biblical passages to discredited facts seem silly.
However, these biblical hypotheses are no sillier than scientific
hypothesis that subsequent research shows were erroneous. This is no
reason to stop either process. I simply hypothesized the division of the
hypothesized supercontinent into its parts as starting in Peleg's day. <
Jay and Michael,
Let me digress for a moment before addressing Jay's brief response ... the
word 'silly' in my comment reproduced above was poorly chosen. I'm still
searching for a better word to express my thought ... perhaps 'odd' or
'unreasonable (based on current knowledge).' Let me use Whiston as an
example of what I mean. As I understand it, Whiston proposed that Genesis
1 was describing the formation of the Earth from a large, dense, cloudy,
comet - a concept based upon the best science of his day. However, this
idea seems odd and untenable today since we have made great strides in
understanding the differences between the composition of comets and the
Earth.
Michael, I should have known better than to mention 3 books from your
backyard <grin>. Thanks for you synopses. Also, thanks to Ken Van Dellen,
I have a reprinted copy of Hugh Miller's book and it is in my pile to read.
With your recommendation, I may have to move it higher in the stack. I
also understand your objection to comparing these 3 books to Morris'. They
are oceans apart (in both senses of the word!).
Back to Jay: I see a difference between 'silly' scientific hypotheses and
'silly' biblical hypotheses. In science, we have a process of review that
tends to remove incorrect or flawed hypotheses over time. The scientific
journals are full of articles arguing the merits for or against various
ideas and reporting new data that support or possibly refute previous
notions. However, it has been my experience that flawed biblical
hypotheses tend to hang around a lot longer. These ideas can become part
of Church Tradition, and then Doctrine, and then Dogma. While the
scientific ideas that were current during Whiston's era have been modified,
expanded, or replaced, the theological ideas of the Gnostics which
bedeviled the apostle Paul can still be found debated today.
It also seems that the concordist science ideas promoted by G.M. Price and
plagiarized(?) by Henry Morris are becoming more entrenched every year.
Many years ago, we were able to talk fairly calmly about different ways to
interpret Genesis with respect to the state of modern science. Today, it
has become more of a battle. For example, With the blessing of our Senior
Pastor, I recently taught a 6-week Adult Sunday School class that explored
some issues of Theology and Science. I summarized a variety of ideas and
explored some of the Theology/Science controversies without attempting to
convert anyone to a particular point of view. The Senior Pastor attended
when possible and thoroughly enjoyed the class. However, our Associate
Pastor began to go privately to some of the adults telling them that they
should leave that class since I wasn't emphasizing the 'correct'
interpretation of Genesis (as given by Henry Morris and Co.) Ironically,
the Associate Pastor also tried to convince the class that the Genesis
verses about Peleg could only be referring to the breakup of Pangea!
Although I enjoyed the opportunity to expand on my second point, Jay, I was
really hoping that you would respond to the heart of my previous post that
was found in the concluding statements. After listing a history of 9
tectonic events, I asked ...
>> Can we or should we really expect to find Bible verses to reconcile with
each of these major tectonic events? What purpose would it serve? Would
our faith in God or our acceptance of science be strengthened if we had a
one-to-one reconciliation between these proposed tectonic events and
scripture? <<
Steve
(Please cc: me in any replies)
[Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are my own and are not to be
ascribed to my employer]
_____________
Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
-USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 19:34:56 EDT