Re: In defense of Paul Seely

----- Original Message -----
From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: In defense of Paul Seely

>
> For Bob Schneider,
>
> Bob Schneider wrote:
>
>>>>>t doesn't matter what cosmological models we humans construct; they all
> will differ from the biblical model. Historically, theologians have always
> sought to find a modus vivendi with the current cosmology. The commonly
> acknowledged theological truth, however, is that the doctrine of creation
> remains, even as the understanding of the nature of the God-World
> relationship is re-articulated in the light of new cosmological knowledge.
> The doctrine is not dependent upon the model, however, and that is why one
> can honor the cosmology of Genesis 1 for what it was, the matrix for
> theological truth but a matrix recognizable to its own time and place, and
> not insist that somehow it must be able to be consonant with every new
> current cosmological model historically--to become all things to all
> men.<<<
>
> Is there anyway, anyhow, under any circumstances that one could possibly,
> conceivably conclude that Genesis is
> false? If not, why is this view any different from the YECs who believe
> that evidence doesn't matter?
>
> How wrong does Genesis have to be before you decide it is false?
>
> Is Genesis going to be teaching the true doctrine of creation regardless
> of how wrong it is when compared with
> scientific data?
>
> I would also ask about the flexibility of religion. Science, when it finds
> out it is wrong, eventually changes
> the paradigm. But above, you argue that the paradigm (divine creation)
> should stay static regardless of the
> data or lack there of supporting the assertion. How is that different
> from a YEC who claims that the Bible is
> true and we should believe in a 6000 year old earth because the doctrine
> of the young-earth is what is
> important?
>

Glenn,

I think we are coming from quite different perspectives and in part are
talking past each other. While I enjoy a good sparring match, I'm not
certain an exchange would get us any further. For my views on Genesis,
theology and science, see the following:

    "A Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding":
www.episcopalchurch.org/science/, click "Catechism of Creation" and read
sections I and II. I am the principal author, but it is a joint effort with
lots of input from the whole committee . It makes a succinct presentation on
what _theology of creation_ is, and its biblical roots, from a fairly
mainstream perspective, and explores the relationship between theology and
science. You can download a PDF version.

    Also read the first three essays at my own home page on the Berea
College web site, "Science and Faith: perspectives on Christianity and
science" at community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/. You'll have to paste this
address, or Google "Berea College Science and Faith. Essay I: "What the
Bible Teaching about Creation"; Essay II: "Theology of Creation: Historical
Perspectives and Fundamental Concepts"; Essay III: "Does the Bible Teach
Science?" In the general introduction you'll see that I give a lot of credit
to my ASA colleagues, and you find many of them cited in most of my essays.
Paul Seely has been very helpful in reading and commenting on some drafts.

I would also recommend Samuel Powell's excellent book _Participating in God:
Creation and Trinity_ (Fortress, 2003, "Theology and the Sciences" Series).
Sam is professor of philosophy at Point Loma Nazarene University in
California. The book won the Smith-Wynkoop Prize from the Wesleyan Theology
Society. Sam articulates very well the distinction between doctrine and
understanding that I mentioned above.

Bob
Received on Thu Jun 8 08:18:22 2006