So yes, Ross had chosen his own metaphysic by choosing science but it was
taking the advice of atheists, and he arrived at a different conclusion. I
contend this still proves my point. In at least some cases, the facts of
science can be used to lead people to Christ. I don't see why this is so
controversial or why this even needs to be defended. And that the fact that
the Bible also teaches this is just extra.
The main thing is that both sides are using science to claim it supports their metaphysical assumptions.??We certainly do need to interpret scripture in light the knowledge we gain from science.? This is why most of us here object to the YEC position.? Such a position is inconsistent with science unless we introduce all sorts of unrestrained?miracles and convoluted work arounds.??Moreover, it appears to me to?be?mainly?a defensive?response to preserve a particular point of?view?that strikes me as unnecessary.
So the?reason to believe has a lot more to do with that fact that our heart is directed that way.??We?look at the data and try to understand it in light of what we believe fundamentally.? I believe in God the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth..... On the other hand, I only accept evolution, the age of the universe etc.? The first is fundamental, how I personally perceive the foundations of the world to be.??The second are the facts that I can learn from science.
Therefore, if new information really came in proving without a doubt that the universe is actually 6000 years old (fat change but anyway), and that information could be shown to be true in a sound and persuasive way, and if it could answer the probing of my mind to sufficient degree, I have not problem with changing my position.? But the science would be accepting the facts as a valid way to describe the sequence of events that have occurred in the history of the universe.? Sorting out the facts of science as we have them, just as you would sort out the evidence at the scene of a crime, the evidence points to an old universe and evolution to the best of my discernment of what I have seen and probed with my own mind.?
But as to why I see God and salvation through Christ in all this, that really starts from my view of the world, my view of myself, and what I think this is all about.? I cannot use science to justify that part of it.? I can only view science and realize that it does not conflict with my faith; unless I insist on some position like "I'm not descended from a monkey"?or "the earth?is the center of the universe" as?the cornerstone of?my faith. So?it is fair to offer an interpretation of the?scripture in light of science that is consistent with science, in as much as we can.? Maybe this is what you mean by "defensive".? But attempts to say "this __is__ the truth?(R)(C)(Tm)" is?certainly dangerous when playing with science.?It could?means we worship science more than we trust the Lord.? In the valley of darkness, we need?his rod and staff to guide us.? Certainly, there in those valleys of our lives,?we?can place no?trust in science over the leading hand of our shepherd.???
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 16 21:01:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 21:01:15 EST