Re: [asa] Slug

Following up on Michaels historical comments:
_________________________________
From: Moore in /God and Nature /(1986) p. 323.

"Previous to Francis Bacon's doctrine of the "two books"s (1605) there
was no sharp distinction "between the visible marks
that God had stamped upon the surface of the earth, so that its inner
secrets could be known and the legible words that the
Scriptures set down in books preserved by tradition. In nature and the
Bible there were simply "signs to be discovered
and then, little by little, made to speak." The signs formed "one vast
single text," and their truth correctly deciphered or read
was "everywhere the same: coeval with the institution of God."

*Not so with Bacon:* This method of interpretation failed because it
mistook the resemblance of things for reality, it made
idols of mere words, and it impeded physical discovery. Things and
words must be carefully distinguished.... Things
must be studied in their own right, empirically and systematically...to
restore the cognitive harmony between mind and
nature that was disrupted by the Fall.

"For Bacon the book of God's works is "a key" to the book of God's word;
students of nature may therefor instruct
interpreters of the Bible. To reverse the relationship.. would "unwisely
mingle or confound these learnings together."

Moore claims that this arrangement worked for more than 200 years in
English-speaking-scholarship and was the basis
for the growth in volume and expertise of physical research." Boyle and
Newton were examples of the "two books" notion
as were Michael's geologist friends of the early 19th C.

It would be helpful for all of us to read the rest of Moore's essay in
Lindberg and Number's classic work. You may not
like it.

Jack Haas
____________________________________________
Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> I do not have the original thought to describe Gen1 as a poem. I took
> that from Gilbert Rorison's chapter on Genesis in Samuel Wilberforce,s
> "Answers to Essays and Reviews" in 1861. That book was a selection of
> essays by conservatives opposing the liberal theology of "Essays and
> Reviews". Clearly for Wilberforce, despite his anti- darwinism and
> conservatism Rosison's view was not radical or liberal.
>
> After all most theologians had stopped this detailed tie-up of Genesis
> and science by about 1700, and most early 19th century concordist
> approachs were far more generalised and non-specific than Glenn wants
> to be.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 16 08:47:20 2006