From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 21:14:58 EDT
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> Jim,
> I think you're on to something. I looked at your draft and found one
> problem. TE is not day-age. Day-age is connected to OEC, as found in Hugh
> Ross from more of a science approach and Gleason Archer (not sure of that
> name) in theology. TE does not go along with bird and fish arriving
> simultaneously, with quadrupeds and man succeeding them. Or with fruiting
> trees before fish. So OEC and TE need to be distinguished.
There are a number of different interpretations of the days of creation
besides the YEC consecutive 24 hour periods interpretation (day-age,
literary framework, days of revelation, intermittent days, et al). I don't
think that OEC and TE are so narrowly defined that all OECs or all TEs
must use the same interpretation. The following is a pair of quotes from
Science and Christian Faith by James Orr in the Fundamentals that appears
to endorse both TE and day-age.
"There is no violence done to the narrative in substituting in thought
"aeonic" days--vast cosmic periods--for "days" on our narrower
sun-measured scale."
""Evolution", in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for
"creation"."
However, the problems that you mentioned in holding to both a TE position
and a day-age position should also be problems for holding both an OEC and
a day-age position.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 21:14:56 EDT