George Murphy said:
"Or use this metaphor. If (as used to be said) theology is the queen of
the sciences, the other sciences are her ministers. They can't dictate
to the queen. "
I think I disagree. I gave an example of evolution- from general
revelation. Before evolution, there was a certain theology. After
evolution, theology changes... big time! In fact, that is why Ken Ham
and others resist evolution so much. They listen to only the queen. In
that case of evolution, general revelation "dictated to the queen."
The "queen" had no choice but to obey and follow. In fact, the queen
was humbled to learn that she was not master, but instead a peer, to
general revelation. If general revelation speaks clearly, the queen
must move. If the two speak clearly and conflict, guess who wins? Yes-
general revelation,,, the 'queen' has been de-throned. It happened with
Galileo, and is happening again with evolution, but with evolution on a
tremendously larger scale.
George- what do you think specifically of this statement I made given
the previous example of evolution:
"If the two speak clearly and conflict, guess who wins? Yes- general
revelation,,, the 'queen' has been de-throned. It happened with
Galileo, and is happening again with evolution, but with evolution on a
tremendously larger scale. "
...Bernie
________________________________
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:25 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (Book 1 and 2)
General revelation (to the extent that there is such a thing) is
certainly subordinate to special revelation. The former tells us
nothing about who the true God or about the Incarnation & atonement. It
simply doesn't speak to those crucial questions.
But it really confuses things to speak about "general revelation." What
we learn about from "the book of nature" is nature, not the author of
nature - just as what we learn from a novel is the story being told, not
the author. (As Ezra Pound put it, "You can always tell the bad critic
when he starts talking about the poet instead of the poem.") OTOH, the
purpose of God's historical revelation in Christ is to tell us about
God, God's will for us &c & not about the natural world.
Or use this metaphor. If (as used to be said) theology is the queen of
the sciences, the other sciences are her ministers. They can't dictate
to the queen. But a wise queen will listen to her ministers in their
areas of competence. Similarly, theology should pay attention to what
the natural sciences say about, e.g., the age of the earth & if
necessary reconsider its interpretation of biblical texts in that light.
My article at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06Murphy.pdf deals
with the two books metaphor.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (Book 1 and 2)
George Cooper said:
"Further, to claim, as Ken Ham does in his video, that to not
accept the day as 24 hours will cause the "collapse of Christianity" is
yet another disquieting facet to their marketing."
I think Ken Ham is revealing his mind- according to his
religious beliefs, his "Christianity" would be demolished if evolution
were true... which is true.
I think one thing to push with YEC's like Ken Ham is the notion
of God's two books- God's Word and God's works. They seem to reject and
ignore God's works (or at least greatly minimize God's works), and think
that nature is subordinate to God's word (as if "general revelation" is
subordinate to "special revelation"). I think book books should be
considered on the same basis- without one being superior to the other...
or maybe "God's works" being superior (in some cases) since it is
provable (in some cases where it is, such as knowing that the Earth
revolves around the Sun rather than vice-versa).
If "God's Word" (Book 1) says that man was made uniquely from
dust of the Earth, but "God's works" (Book 2) says the means of
creation was evolution from lower life-forms, I think we should go with
Book #2 because it brings evidence with it. In that case, Book 2 has
precedence, or can help interpret, Book 1. YEC's focus on Book 1, and
ignore anything from Book 2 that is contradictory to Book 1.
Ken Ham says he has nothing against science... he loves science.
What he dislikes is so-called "modern science." I guess what he likes
is "creation science."
Just my thoughts.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:40 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference
It is especially disappointing for me to see the disingenuous,
at best, approach used by some advocates for YEC in teaching others. To
avoid or obfuscate the many lines of evidence that support BBT or
evolution in a YEC presentation is highly unfair to others, especially
our youth. Further, to claim, as Ken Ham does in his video, that to
not accept the day as 24 hours will cause the "collapse of Christianity"
is yet another disquieting facet to their marketing.
Yesterday, I had lunch with my daughter, who's in college, and
she has been indoctrinated into the anti-evolution camp. When I began
to calmly offer the idea that God uses processes to accomplish His will
and that evolution is a very powerful and logical process, tears began
to form in her eyes because her Dad is, apparently, not the Christian
soldier that she hoped he would be.
Since many of my church friends are YECers, I know they are
sincere about their beliefs and don't deserve to be called liars. Yet
some YECers are far more knowledgeable about science and may deserve
such harsh accusation. It is wiser not to do so, as the reason has now
been made obvious.
My personal request is to get more people here, and some seekers
of truth within the YEC camp, to tackle the literal claims of M-Genesis.
My attempts to get people interested in taking the ideas serious seems
to fail, though I still await arguments that are logical against those
claims.
If Genesis was an eye-witness account, or a vision of what
actually happened, then it should be concordant with most of mainstream
science, especially the sciences that enjoy a confluence of evidence
supporting their theories.
A plausible literal view is all that is necessary to get many
out of the YEC rut, IMO.
Coope
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 24 10:31:26 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 24 2008 - 10:31:26 EDT