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

True Bernie, and as well, the degree of any "conflict" also depends on the
amount of authority given to "science" as *opposed* to theology. Certainly
even those 18th and 19th century folks saw a stark "conflict" when it was
asserted that "science" (natural philosophy) could provide a complete
description of everything -- ala Thomas Paine or David Hume. The 19th
century divines managed this conflict by a concordist hermeneutic, which
gave faith and the scriptures a place at the empirical table. We know today
that this strategy doesn't often work very well, so we are seeing (outside
of the fundamentalism) a strategy focused on a thicker epistemology and
thicker hermeneutic, that allows for different layers of meaning both in the
created order and in the scriptural text. The point is that today's
fundamentalists aren't really the heirs of the 19th century divines to the
extent they assert that scripture must "trump" science, or that science must
"trump" scripture / theology. IMHO, the best efforts today focus on
interdisciplinarity, epistemology and hermeneutic rather than mere
concordism, but they share the spirit of confidence in the unity of all of
God's Truth.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> ""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 Shopping<http://shopping.aol.com/back-to-school?ncid=aolins00050000000007>
> .
>

-- 
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.