> > I think another thing that is driving YEC against TE especially, is a
> > mistaken view that if you use evidence from science to interpret
> > scripture, than you are putting scripture secondary to science.
>
> This is undoubtedly true. We can respond to this concern by pointing out
> that there doesn't seem to be a problem with using other extra-biblical
> knowledge to interpet scripture.
Perhaps a stronger example would be the fact that the resurrection is significant only if the scientific evidence that people normally stay dead is both valid and extrapolatable back into the past. If uniformitarian assumptions are inherently atheistic, or if science cannot be applied to Scripture, then there's no way to know that the resurrection wasn't just an odd fluke, or something that happened all the time in Biblical days, or otherwise unremarkable.
Another problem with this accusation are the numerous examples of antievolutionary "science" making Scripture secondary. This includes the many examples of eisegesis, misinterpreting a verse to support flood geology or a young earth or antievolutionary views. Disregarding Scriptural commands relating to honesty, diligence, careful teaching, etc., in order to advance antievolutionary "science" shows that Scripture has become secondary. Endorsing any antievolutionism, regardless of what religion it invokes, shows that antievolutionary "science" is more important than Scripture.
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
Received on Fri Jan 21 14:59:24 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 14:59:26 EST