RE: [asa] Slug

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:51 AM

Yes, Glenn, I did exactly say that. What I put there was an exact quote
from my previous post. It looks to me like you didn't read that bit for the
first time. My literal, verbatim words were "I think we're all agreed that
the Bible isn't supposed to be that".

How can you then say I didn't say exactly that when that is exactly what I
said?
[Glenn Morton]
 
Because I mistook a very similar phrase in the first paragraph for the one
you quoted in the very last paragraph. I was wrong.

You wrote:
 

"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."

Frankly, I don' t quite know how to take it other than the all or nothing
fallacy even after I re-read it. If the only way to avoid the problem is to
give a complete science book, as you say, then why on earth is this not the
all or nothing fallacy?

No, because ANY incomplete statement, such as "life came from slime" is an
(admittedly incomplete) scientific statement that could be as ludicrously
wrong as the Great Green Slug. And equally, even if the FACTS are wrong,
the truth behind them is still what convicts, because we don't know the
facts. You have said why can't God have told us the earth is old. Well,
then what do you mean by old? Some people would say 6000 years is old.
It's a heck of a long time for someone who only lives threescore years and
ten. So maybe it does say the earth is old. The problem is that "old" is a
term that requires quantification. If, as you say, it doesn't have to give
the figures and be a modern science book, then you can't complain that it
doesn't say the earth is old. The notion of "Young Earth" is only in
comparison to the timescales of modern science. It doesn't say in the Bible
that the earth is young. And the inference that it is young is only made
when you equate "man" created on day 6 in Gen Ch 1 with "Adam" in Gen Ch 2 -
an inference disputed by many scholars who say these are different accounts.

[Glenn Morton]
But the Bible does say 6 days and it does give ages in the genealogies, and
it does have all the paleontology wrong.
 
 

One last try, consider one of my favourite poems, "Futility" by Wilfred
Owen, which contains its own allusions to the origin of life.

Futility

Move him into the sun -
Gently its touch awoke him once,
At home, whispering of fields unsown.
Always it woke him, even in France,
Until this morning and this snow.
If anything might rouse him now
The kind old sun will know.

Think how it wakes the seed -
Woke, once, the clays of a cold star.
Are limbs, so dear-achieved, are sides,
Full-nerved -still warm- too hard to stir?
Was it for this the clay grew tall?
- O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?

In the poem, a soldier laments over the dead body of a comrade in the first
world war. The emotions are raw, heartbreaking, and a true representation
of what the poet felt. What is the point of life if it comes to this?
Three syllables give you the whole of the origins of life and evolution
"clay grew tall". But wait a minute, "Woke, once the clays of a cold star".
What is this? Absolute nonsense, as far as I can see; the early earth was
neither cold, nor a star. We're not asking Owen to give us a scientific
account of the origins of life, but surely he didn't have to give us this
falsehood! Owen knows as well as we do that the sun isn't "kind", nor is
it "fatuous" (silly), nor do its beams "toil".

But none of these fatuous complaints about scientific accuracy distract from
the message of absolute despair and loss that the poet wished to convey, and
indeed the imagery enhances the message.

Michael Roberts has memorably described Genesis Ch 1 as a "Hymn to
Creation", and I think if one views it as that, and quit worrying about
whether what it conveys are accurate facts, then perhaps you can get it
"straight in the guts" just as that Wilfred Owen poem with all its
scientific absurdities gets me in the guts.

Iain

[Glenn Morton] The problem is as Jack noted. Non poetic language is being
called poetic. Michael can call it what he wants, but frankly Genesis 5,
Genesis 3, Genesis 2 doesn't really read like a poem. Neither does Genesis
6-9 read like a poem.

A further problem arises when one then claims that the theology of the Bible
is true in the face of all the falsity. Other religions have 'hymns to
creation" which are equally false, but for some reason we a priori rule
their theology out. Heads we win; tails they lose. It is a wonderful
self-delusional system.
 
The only way out is through verification. But that is what the 'scientists'
on this list don't want--they don't want observational verification of
statements in the Bible or any other sacred text for that matter. I find
this odd. We say science is true because of the evidence, but theology is
true in spite of the lack of evidence. Quite an interesting way to fool
oneself.
 
And then there is the unwillingness of the accommodationalists to answer
questions. I asked Paul how he tells a religion with true theology apart
from one with false theology if both have bad science. No answer. Seems
like a perfectly good question but I got no answer. I have asked it again.
maybe this time I will get an answer. I asked Burgy, if the events
surrounding Jesus' birth are mere accommodations to the style of the day in
which great astronomical events are said to occur at the birth of a great
person. No answer. Seems like a perfectly good question, but apparently if
it is ignored, people feel it will go away. No other accommodationalist
decided to try to tackle that question either. And given the amount of time
it took to drag out of people the question about the slug (Iain, I had been
asking that on this list since March and only began to pull answers out
recently I have been asking that of Michael since Jan 1, 2006 and still have
not received an answer) it makes me wonder why these non-yecs act in such a
YEClike manner. Maybe faith does that to people. Maybe it ruins their
logical thinking ability.
 
I have had a private conversation with an accommodationalist who keeps
spouting utterly false science about anthro, geology and other things, but
he is convinced I am wrong because I want concordism. He has spouted such
nonsense publically but no one corrects him from the accommodationalists (a
yec-like behavior). This person never acknowledges any of the errors he is
making. One can correct him and he just remains silent--a yec-like behavior.
He even seems to believe in a static, unchanging world in which the geology
never changes through millions of years. So people will know that I
acknowledge my error, look above at my first statement in this post where it
says, "I was wrong" Apparently that doesn't apply to accommodationalists
who spout scientific mush.
 
Frankly, if all religion offers is an ability to never see logic or error in
themselves, then it isn't worth much.

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 22:53:42 2006