RE: [asa] Rudwick does it again (back to Adam)

Hi Bernie, you wrote:
 
"The only reason not to take it fully literally, in my opinion, is
because we know better because of science."
 
Depends on what you mean by literal. If Hebrew is mistranslated into
English in a few key instances and then interpreted in a vacuum of
extra-biblical information is that literal? I don't think so. I take
Genesis quite literally (with cues from science and history) but avoid
common, traditional mistakes. "Literal" is not the issue. Bad
interpretation based upon translation errors coupled with total
disregard for science and history is the true culprit. Add to that pure
laziness. How many theologians have read a book on paleo-anthropology,
for example?
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:21 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Rudwick does it again (back to Adam)
 
""On the issue of the earth's timescale there was therefore no
significant conflict between geology and Genesis, or between geologists
and a "Church" that in reality was far from monolithic. The only
conflict -- sometimes and locally -- was between scientific savants
(including those who were religious believers) on the one hand, and
specific sections of the wider public on the other." [p. 564-565]"
 
It sounds like he is saying there is no conflict with Genesis and
science. However, Genesis says Adam was made biologically from dirt
about 6,000 years ago; and science (evolution) says there was no first
man (or one first biological man named "Adam").
 
Whether there is a conflict or not depends on how literal you take
Genesis. Ken Ham takes it to the extreme, so yes, there is an obvious
conflict. However, this "extreme" is the plain reading of it. The only
reason not to take it fully literally, in my opinion, is because we know
better because of science. If it wasn't for science, I'd believe it in
the most literal sense, like the ancients mostly did (and like Ken Ham
does now because he chooses the literal Bible over modern science).
 
.Bernie
 
  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of cmekve@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:53 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Rudwick does it again
 
Martin Rudwick, the dean of earth science historians -- and formerly a
research paleontologist -- has recently published his sequel to his
previous tome Bursting the Limits of Time. The new book "Worlds Before
Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform" is at least
as good and covers the time from 1817 to 1845 -- or approximately Cuvier
and Buckland to Lyell and the early Darwin (i.e., Darwin the geologist).

Fortunately, like his subjects, Rudwick is multilingual and so the
history does not focus solely on Britain. The interplay between
European 'savants' is fascinating and the geologic problems discussed
are accessible to virtually anyone, not just geologists.

Of particular interest to this list will be his last chapter, entitled
"Concluding (Un)scientific Postscript" [with proper recognition and
apologies to Soren Kierkegaard !]. This more philosophical chapter
emphasizes, among other things, the marginal nature of the so-called
'conflict' between science and religion. And marginal [Rudwick's
italics] not only to us in hindsight, but marginal to the participants
at the time. This is something that Michael Roberts has repeatedly
emphasized on this list, but I think even Michael would admit that
Rudwick says it more elegantly.

As an example:

"On the issue of the earth's timescale there was therefore no
significant conflict between geology and Genesis, or between geologists
and a "Church" that in reality was far from monolithic. The only
conflict -- sometimes and locally -- was between scientific savants
(including those who were religious believers) on the one hand, and
specific sections of the wider public on the other." [p. 564-565]

"... I have suggested...that the Judeo-Christian cultural tradition had
a far more profound role in the shaping of the new practice of
geohistory, and a strongly positive one at that." [p.565]

"The great fallacy in the "conflict thesis" -- a fallacy sedulously
fostered by those modern commentators who can fairly be described as
crusading atheistic fundamentalists -- is that it treats both sides of
the supposed conflict as reified and ahistorical entities: "Science"
and "Religion". In reality, everything depended, then as now, on when,
where, and who." [p. 564]

This is a magnificent book. If you can't buy it, borrow it. But be
sure to read it.

Karl
**********************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
  _____

It's time to go back to school! Get the latest trends and gadgets that
make the grade on AOL
<http://shopping.aol.com/back-to-school?ncid=aolins00050000000007>
Shopping.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 15 14:03:02 2008