RE: [asa] Slug

I think you are making the mistake I call the all or nothing fallacy. In
order to tell the truth, one doesn't have to tell ALL the truth. If the
account merely said the earth was old, and out of the earth came life, then
you have a true but incomplete account. I don't know why people continually
try to use the argument that if God didn't write a physics book, he was
lying. Life and communication isn't of that nature.
 
Because you see things as the all or nothing fallacy, you cast this problem
in the most extreme form "unless you have a Bible that provides a complete
scientific revelation, " . That simply isn't the case. The traditional
interpretations have God getting EVERYTHING wrong and nothing right. And
the accommodationalists say "So what?"
 
Over and over I have used the car wreck to try to illustrate the problem.
One can say that the red car hit the blue car and you have a simple AND TRUE
description of the wreck. There is no need to talk about quantum physics and
molecular forces. (for some reason people don't think about this
illustration posted numerous times here on this list). Similarly, God could
have inspired the writer to say "out of the slime came life" and you would
have a basically true scientific statement---no details, nothing about
natural selection. It simply isn't required to provide a true account. So
please stop making the all or nothing fallacy.
 
And I would note that such a statement is not beyond the mental capabilities
of the neolithic farmers (indeed spontaneous generation was a widespread
belief). So, to me, the question is why DIDN'T God inspire something simple
like that?
 
Is God incompetent at communication?
Is God powerless?
Is God not God?
Is God devious?
 
To me, without a simple statement of what happened (out of the slime came
life--NOT A MODERN SCIENCE BOOK-- I REPEAT FOR THE 10,000th time on this
list, NOT A MODERN SCIENCE BOOK) , it exposes God to these charges.
 
I guess it is easier for people to view my position as what you do, rather
than think about the reality that God could have said something quite simple
that would have been satisfactory and in line with modern science. By doing
that, one doesn't really have to deal with the very hard issue. One can
ignore it. But to do that, is not to think very deeply upon these issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:12 PMOn 6/14/06, Glenn Morton
<glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:

Glenn,

If any sacred writing gives any account of creation, unless it either says
"God made all this", or it gives a perfect revelation of the science that
actually happened, it will be vulnerable to inferences being made ( e.g.
about the age of the earth), which might later turn out to be factually
wrong. Suppose it were possible to infer from a sacred text that the
Universe was created around 13 billion years ago with a big explosion from
which everything originated. Then suppose by the 22nd century, things
change radically (as they have before in Physics), and a steady state
infinite age model becomes accepted. Then that sacred text would be
factually wrong according to the most up to date physics. Hence a Big Bang
Bible would only of necessity be accomodated to 21st century physics, which
could in principle be wrong.

Glenn, I know this is a difficult issue for you, but I don't think there can
logically be an answer to it, unless you have a Bible that provides a
complete scientific revelation, and I think we're all agreed that the Bible
isn't supposed to be that.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 15 07:24:07 2006