In a message dated 10/26/2001 1:35:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil writes:
<>
I must leave the issue of theistic/deistic evolution to others. However, you
might consider the statement by B.B. Warfield made ninety years ago (about a
book called Darwinism Today) that seems to be relevant,
"Some lack of genuine philosophical acumen must be suspected when it is not
fully understood that teleology is in no way inconsistent with-is rather
necessarily involved in-a complete system of natural causation. Every
teleological system implies a complete 'causo-mechanical' explanation as its
instrument."
My own field of study responds more to your statement:
<< So, it behooves those who hope to convince a scientist that our
(Judeo-Christian) God is the God of Creation, that they be able to show how
the Biblical Creation story jibes with the observed data. Then the
scientist can feel comfortable accepting the "rest of the story." >>
The biblical creation story does jibe with the observed data, BUT as it was
interpreted and understood by the people of those times, the people to whom
the revelation originally came. Consequently, showing how it jibes with the
observed data makes a scientist feel comfortable with the "rest of the story"
by showing him that the scientific particulars of the story are
contextualizations (to use a modern missionary term) rather than statements
that could seamlessly overlay modern interpretations of the observed data.
For explication, see my paper, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist
Theory and in Biblical Context. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
49:2 (June, 1997) 85-95, also at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF6-97Seely.html#The Bible and
Science.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 26 2001 - 20:20:20 EDT