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

I am unclear how theology can be considered a queen of sciences? Is it
because theology trumps science, and science is but a subset of the broader,
subjective realm? If so, it seems to still confuse the important
distinction to what science is and what the queen is not. I recall a SNL
skit (Will Farell and Jeff Goldbloom?) where Will plays Harry Carry (sp?)
and Jeff a prominent astronomer. Will asks Jeff what his favorite planet is
and then interrupts Jeff by stating his favorite is the Sun. [Obviously,
I'm easily humored.] My point is that I sense a disconnect in the science
metaphor.

Coope

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:42 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 <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

-- 
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.