I recognize the historical and geographical notions of the ancients in
the scriptures. They do not match what we learn from the Book of Nature,
which has its source in the same deity as scripture. There is an obvious
point here, which Augustine recognized on different grounds.
I do not understand quantum mechanics or string theory, which seems to be
a minimum requirement to get into cosmology. It is obvious that Moses had
not even heard of these disciplines. Given the number of times I
encounter indications that scientists still do not know how some things
happened, I doubt that the most advanced science today could make out the
full understanding of the universe and the rest of reality were it
spelled out totally. The ultimate is beyond communication unless God has
other creatures endowed with immeasurably greater intelligence than
mankind.
All the confessions from the time of the Reformation except the Lutheran
specify that scripture speaks to faith and practice, how to be saved and
how to behave. The Lutherans, like the ecumenical creeds, simply assume
biblical authority. They, like the other groups that have a catechism,
are clear on the two purposes of scripture. Why did they not specify the
inerrancy of scripture on history and science?
Unless God is kidding us and the fathers and divines never caught on, I
think the answer to the professor is clear.
Dave (ASA)
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:47:46 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
Professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary “First, how does he know what
God "did not plan the Bible to be"?”
Yes- I think it is interesting how maybe most of us understand the Bible
to be “accommodating” the ancient ‘science of the day’ to reveal a
theological message. But if the Bible is accommodating to the ancients,
yet it is from God; why wasn’t it written to accommodate everyone, even
modern readers? Why is it only accommodating to ancient science, but not
specifying that or accommodating to people in the modern world? It is as
if it was written to and only for the ancients, and we have to interpret
it (whereas the ancients didn’t have to interpret, since it aligned with
their history and science).
…Bernie
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:12 AM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation; Randy Isaac
Subject: Fw: [asa] Olasky on Collins
Randy,
I took the liberty of forwarding your response to a friend of mine who is
a philosopher and also a professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary and
this was his response. This guy is a really smart but he is one of the
the fundamentalist types I mentioned in my other thread and we have
debated endlessly about TE/ID for several years. He does at least
occasionally maintain the dialogue like here so I have hope that I may
still be able to reach him one day. I have put George in touch with him
before. He is definitely convinced that he has the correct theology
though.
These questions are typical of a philosopher but valid. This appears to
be an interesting opportunity for us to explain how we know what is true
and the role of science in establishing what we know. If anyone on the
list cares to respond to him I would be happy to forward the comments.
Thanks
John
----- Forwarded Message ----
John,
Thanks for the email. It is very interesting. I do have a few questions
regarding number five (which I've pasted for convenience with emphasis
added).
5."The basic problem may be that Collins believes in Christ's
resurrection but doesn't seem to have a high view of Scripture, which is
where we primarily learn about Christ's resurrection."
No, that is mistaking a "high view of Scripture" for a particular
interpretation of Scripture. Collins is committed to the inspiration of
the Bible which to him means understanding it for what God is teaching,
not defining "high view" to be a certain human interpretation of what God
might be teaching. Specifically, God did not plan the Bible to be a
textbook on modern science or to reveal scientific mysteries such as what
sort of particle causes gravitational attraction or the exact processes
of biological development. Rather, God meant it to reveal his
sovereignty and plan of salvation. Is it proper exegesis to force the
Bible to answer the sort of scientific questions we feel are important,
rather than recognizing what message God intended the text to speak?
First, how does he know what God "did not plan the Bible to be"? Where
does he get this knowledge?
Second, how does he know what God meant it to reveal?
Third, why is it that when he tells us what he thinks God meant, this is
not (presumably) "a certain human interpretation" but when others say
what they think God or the Bible means, it might be "a certain human
interpretation"?
Fourth, how can he know what message God has intended for the text? Where
does he get this knowledge?
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
Dear Mr. Olasky,
The American Scientific Affiliation is a Fellowship of Christians in
science. We are committed to a statement of faith based on the Apostles’
and the Nicene creeds and to integrity in science. We were founded in
1941 at the instigation of the president of Moody Bible Institute. We are
not an advocacy group and do not take positions in areas of honest
disagreement among Christians but encourage dialog in a spirit of
Christian love. See www.asa3.org.
Francis Collins is one of our members who was elected a Fellow in
2006. Though I cannot speak for him and our organization does not take
sides, we do want to ensure that there is a clarity of dialog with
accurate and fair analysis of all sides. In that spirit, may I offer the
following comments, compiled with edits from several of our members, in
response to your recent column titled “An Hour, Sir, Please”.
1. "Collins recently set up the BioLogos Foundation: Its website defines
BioLogos as "the belief that Darwinism is a correct science." This is
confusing: Darwinism means unguided evolution, right?"
No, Darwinism means different things to different people and is used in
different ways. In Collins's statement he is simply talking about the
predominant role of descent with modification and natural selection in
the development of species.
2. "Does Collins mean by "theistic evolution" the concept that God is
guiding the evolutionary process?"
Yes, Collins does mean God guiding the evolutionary process just as he
guides the gravitational process, the electromagnetic process, and other
processes in nature. God insures the continued functioning of the laws of
nature he created, and scientists study the ways in which they are
manifest in nature. This is consistent with the Christian belief in God
as both creator and sustainer of his creation.
3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
No, not ID as usually described by its advocates. Yes, as Christians we
all believe that our Creator is an intelligent designer and we believe
that the awesome world around us declares the existence of this
intelligent designer. But ID generally refers to the belief that a)
evolution is not an adequate scientific explanation of the origin of
species, and b) that there is a specific logical argument based on
DNA-information being specified complex information for which the best
explanation is an indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the
position with which Collins disagrees.
4."On the other hand, if Collins believes that God passively watches
evolution unfold, isn't that deistic evolution? "
No, if by deistic evolution you mean that God starts the evolution going,
and no longer has any role in his creation. In Collins's views, God
guides evolution and is intimately involved in sustaining his creation at
every instant--the same for evolution as for gravity and for
electromagnetism.
5."The basic problem may be that Collins believes in Christ's
resurrection but doesn't seem to have a high view of Scripture, which is
where we primarily learn about Christ's resurrection."
No, that is mistaking a "high view of Scripture" for a particular
interpretation of Scripture. Collins is committed to the inspiration of
the Bible which
to him means understanding it for what God is teaching, not defining
"high view" to be a certain human interpretation of what God might be
teaching. Specifically, God did not plan the Bible to be a textbook on
modern science or to reveal scientific mysteries such as what sort of
particle causes gravitational attraction or the exact processes of
biological development. Rather, God meant it to reveal his sovereignty
and plan of salvation. Is it proper exegesis to force the Bible to
answer the sort of scientific questions we feel are important, rather
than recognizing what message God intended the text to speak?
6. "For example, Collins' BioLogos website declares, "It seems likely
that Adam and Eve were not individual historical characters, but
represented a larger population of first humans who bore the image of
God."
Yes, that is a likely scientific interpretation and an appropriate
biblical interpretation as well. There are many well-respected
theologians and Bible-believing scientists and philosophers, dating back
at least to St. Augustine , who have differed over the specific
scientific relevance of various portions of scripture, yet have held an
authentically Christian theology.
7."Many subsequent figures in the Bible, preeminently Jesus, referred to
Adam as an individual: Were they deluded? "
No, they were not deluded but neither were they modern scientists or
historians trying to document a historical event. This was the
conventional populist belief at the time and the messages Jesus and Paul
were giving were not science lessons but deeper theological lessons. This
isn't delusion, but speaking in the language of the people.
8."Still, I'm not so worried about Collins' theological statements: Many
readers can exegete them and come to their own conclusions. What I and
many others need help with is the science. I'll put it simply and
personally: I like Collins and find him convincing as he attacks ID. But
when I hear Steve Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, a major new
book published by HarperCollins and reviewed positively by many
scientists, expound the flaws in Darwinism, I find him utterly
convincing."
It is true that Stephen Meyer is a very convincing writer. I recently
obtained this book and am partially through reading it. It is indeed a
well written manifesto—perhaps a definitive ID scientific apologetic. The
arguments are not convincing to most scientists, including Christians in
science, but the case is made in such a persuasive style that many people
will be impressed.
9."I don't understand the science well enough to ask Collins intelligent
follow-up questions, so I'd love to see a discussion between Collins and
Meyer. Earlier this year I asked Collins personally if he'd come to The
King's College in the Empire State Building sometime and spend an hour
before faculty and students discussing the issues with Meyer: We'd tape
it and put excerpts in WORLD. Collins said no, and he has since said no
to other entreaties."
Collins has the right to be selective of the many requests he has
received. It is understandable that he would prefer to engage a
biochemist regarding topics in biology.
10."Of course, he was busy earlier this year and he'll be even busier
now. Collins may also be averse to sharing a platform with someone below
his status, but Meyer has a Cambridge University Ph.D. and, as of 10:49
p.m. on July 6, had the No. 1 best-seller in Amazon's Kindle store in the
"science and religion" category; Collins' book, The Language of God, was
No. 3. (Note: Collins' has been out for a couple of years and has sold
widely-but Meyer is a worthy challenger.)"
Truth is not based on best-selling book volumes.
11."I still want to hear two intelligent, influential guys discussing
design, so I'm asking Collins publicly: Please, sir, busy senators and
governors and major authors are coming to King's these days, and I
suspect you too will be coming to Manhattan sometime. Whenever you do,
can you spare an hour?"
If you had come to the ASA meeting last weekend, that's exactly what you
would have heard. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetingASA.html There are
advocates on both sides of the ID debate among ASA members, and we
encourage dialog in a spirit of Christian love.
Randy
____________________________________________________________
Psychology Programs
Official Site. Univ. of Phoenix. Get Info on Psychology Degrees Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=JYj9dlyY5xsaRlsgW1ytVQAAJ1C299ic4kQXCDEcUzIPh2aFAAUAAAAAAAAAACE8Wj6Z8C3LDcKp40CXALV2nYWnAAAAAA==
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 13 14:57:37 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 13 2009 - 14:57:37 EDT