We have those of hold inerrancy: from the literalist to the plastic -
allowing a spectrum of interpretations.
Then we have an imaginary group that hold "degrees" of inerrancy - given
another spectrum of interpretations.
In both groups the spectra of interpretations are the result of all
constraints: scientific, phylosophical, theological, biblical, historical,
etc.
My problem is that with a closer look these to spectra are either very similar
or identical. Therefore, complete inerracy with hermeneutically different
approaches gives the same results as "degenerating" inerrancy.
Evolution has the "appearance" of having taken place. However, there is a
huge number of inconsistencies and unexplained things. So to hold on to
evolution is premature at best and as Christians I believe we should excersize
skepticism.
Salu2
Denis Lamoureux wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to offer a short caveat on ID. I believe it is a function of
> evangelicalism's inability in coming to terms with evolution, which is,of
> course, ultimately reflects a hermeneutically problem. In addition,
> evangelicalism's apologetic tendency (which I might add I support in
> priniciple) is then conflated into the formula--thus Phil Johnson & Co.
> In Christ,
> Denis
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD
> Department of Oral Biology Residence:
> Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
> University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
> Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
> T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
> CANADA CANADA
>
> Lab: (403) 492-1354
> Residence: (403) 439-2648
> Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
>
> E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>
> "In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
> rather than expose thy opponent."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------