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

What do the church fathers have to do with it? My point is that Genesis was written by an ancient Jew, and the ancient Jews mostly took it literal because it was the "science of the day." Most modern thinkers don't take it literally now. Obviously there's a grey zone of transition between the ancients and the modern. The church fathers are in a transition point, I think.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of cmekve@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:10 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Rudwick does it again (back to Adam)

It doesn't take a whole lot of reading of the church fathers to realize that many had a far more flexible hermeneutic than is common in American evangelicalism. One of the earliest (Origen) had a very non-literal approach, but so did others -- not least Irenaeus and Augustine. And they were influenced more by internal evidence in the text rather than any 'science' (although of course Augustine was aware of the 'science' of his day - as shown by his oft-cited quote). Assuming that a "fully literal" approach should be the default approach to interpretation is to ignore the rich and very varied literature in Genesis (and all of Scripture).

Karl
*******************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com<mailto:cmekve@aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:20 am
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 "Religi on". 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.
________________________________
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>.

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 20:00:45 2008