Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

Hi Vernon:
No, I do not believe the passages to be untrue. To the contrary, I hold
that they express essential theological truth. But they should not be
taken as historical. It is important not to read into scripture
something that is not there.
Yes, I agree that no form of of human activity can be considered immune
to supernatural interference --miracles can happen -- but that does
mean that supernatural explanations should be incorporated into science.
If one does incorporate supernatural explanations then one is left wide
open to the arguments expressed by Carl Sagan about the demon haunted
world. I would insist that methodological naturalism is the essential
basis of doing science. I would also emphasize the limitations of
science based on methodological naturalism. It is important not to read
into the scientific literature something that is not there.
Don

Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> Hi Don,
>
> Thanks for your comments. However, when you state that "The passages
> are theological stories about Satan.", does that mean you believe them
> to be untrue? If so, are you not surprised that God has allowed them
> to appear in His Revealed Word?
>
> On the other hand, if by these means it is intended that Christians be
> taught some of the fundamentals of life in the courts of heaven, you
> must surely agree that no form of human activity can be considered
> immune to supernatural interference. In such circumstances MN must
> cease to exist as a valid working hypothesis.
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams
>
>
>> Vernon:
>> The passages are theological stories about Satan. They have nothing
>> to do with science.
>> All discussion about God is concerned with the supernatural. But that
>> has nothing to do with methodological naturalism.
>> Don
>>
>> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>>
>>> Forum,
>>> I observe that many here are quick to pounce on any perceived
>>> weakness in the YEC position. But what of their own position as TEs?
>>> It appears to me that all are prepared to ignore some very
>>> fundamental Bible teaching. For example, concerning Job 1: 6-12,
>>> 2:1-6 and 1Kings 22:19-22, I am wondering what the purpose of these
>>> precious revelations might be if not to refute methodological
>>> naturalism - which all here appear to accept as a valid basis for
>>> practising science. Clearly, these extracts suggest that the
>>> _natural_ is, and always has been, open to supernatural activity -
>>> in God's wisdom, and at His discretion.
>>> It is interesting that Darwin's _goad_, Alfred Russell Wallace
>>> (undoubtedly, a reliable observer - though not a Christian) was
>>> convinced of the reality of the supernatural and wrote extensively
>>> of his first hand experiences of it. Many (including myself) would
>>> condemn his partiality for the seance - but his desire to learn,
>>> surely, cannot be faulted. On the other hand, our interest in the
>>> supernatural, as Christians, appears to begin and end with the
>>> resurrection. Is this really adequate for those who earnestly seek
>>> truth?
>>> Vernon
>>> www.otherbiblecode.com <http://www.otherbiblecode.com>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 11 18:28:09 2006