Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (Book 1 and 2)

From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Tue Jun 24 2008 - 11:27:36 EDT

I read George's article that he referenced, and it seems to me that his post is saying something different than the article said, the point of which is that of the "two books" the revealed scriptures needs to be read first to understand the second.  That is that natural theology cannot exist without special revelation, and without understanding Christ and the incarnation.

But that is not the same thing as saying we can learn "nothing" about who the true God is from nature.  We learn more than "nature" by studying nature, but this has to be within the context of understanding Christ and the scriptures.  Similarly your analogy about not being able to understand anything about the author of a novel from reading the novel, is a false statement.  We can learn something about the author.  Quoting Ezra Pound to support your point is far from a proof.

I think also think that science and natural revelation, which overlap, are not necessarily the same thing.  To say that theology is the queen of sciences is just plain wrong.  Science can perfectly well be done without any theology whatsoever, epistemological issues not withstanding.

I would agree with George that the birth, life, and death of Christ, his incarnation and resurrection are the most important, and that the revealed scriptures are second.  But, I also am sure that there are truths that we can understand by observing and contemplating nature, if it is done within the proper context.


On Tue Jun 24 11:10 , Jim Armstrong sent:

Well, George - on this one, I'd like to push back a bit. I don't know that I have this well enough parsed to articulate it cleanly, but I have a strong sense that "the book of nature" has a voice, and it is a strong and enduring voice, patient and uninflected by human action, history or thought. In that sense, there is a certain purity of voice that transcends the intrinsic frailties of human record, be it written, oral or contemplative.

Just a couple of brief observations....

There is without question a virtually universal sense of a divine presence, whether or not there is a written record for the people involved. What inspires that sense, or at least lends credence to it for many (most?) is the awesome workings, providence and visual impact of the natural world. Perhaps this is where the term "general revelation" is less than fully satisfying, but I don't know that this "voice" is necessarily different from or subordinate to special revelation. It might even be considered a necessary gut-level framework for accommodating a higher awareness or sensitivity to the divine.

Second, I think it verges on impossible not to get some reflection of or insight into a creator from its creation, or specifically the Creator from Creation, a glimpse into what is meaningful, the vision, the message, the medium and the interaction with it, ...all in some sense teaching something, sometimes even much about the Creator. Just ponder, for example, the natural attribute of discoverability. It speaks volumes, even libraries in my view.

Or so it seemeth to me.   JimA  [Friend of ASA]


George Murphy wrote:

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

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.

 

R30;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.

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 11:27:55 2008