Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

Bernie, the fact that you're using the term "general revelation" should
indicate that even in your scenario theology is not being "dethroned."
"General revelation" is itself a theological category. What you might be
suggesting is that a particular theological program is being dethroned --
one with a very crabbed understanding of how "general" and "special"
revelation relate to each other. If "revelation" is a (the) crucial
category when it comes to human knowledge, then the effort to understand the
reality in which we live is always a theological project, which includes,
among other things, working to understand as best we can the relationships
among God's multifarious forms of revelation to us. Theology is only
"dethroned" when human knowing is reduced to human observation and reason
alone.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> 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 <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
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.