RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

> The main thing is that both sides are using science to claim it supports
their metaphysical assumptions.

I think what is missing from this overly simplistic observation is the fact
that as the subject of this thread reminds us, the scriptures have something
to say bout this as well. Factoring this out, then sure you can reduce it
down to a he said/she said scenario and that is what I feel is the error of
many on the list, but when you let this verse speak for itself, now you have
the tie-breaker on whose metaphysical assumptions are supported.

As Merv mentioned yesterday, "I can't get over the apparent contradiction

even just in the phrases: "invisible attributes" followed by "have been
clearly

seen." all in the same sentence" not to mention "clearly seen" and
"without

excuse".

This does not sound like that at least from God's perspective, this matter
is being left up to the subjectivity of the beholder.

Proceeding by Grace

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of dawsonzhu@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:00 PM
To: john_walley@yahoo.com; mrb22667@kansas.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

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://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 17 08:33:25 2007