RE: Seely's Views 2

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:18 PM
> To: jwburgeson@juno.com
> Cc: glennmorton@entouch.net; dfwinterstein@msn.com;
> PASAlist@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu

> There are some OECs who hold that every new entity (species,
> family, or higher taxon) was introduced creatively. The
> evidence of extinctions makes God the author of imperfection.
> So, any way we look at God's handiwork in nature, there is
> imperfection, approximation, things fitted temporarily to
> changing conditions. Why then must God act differently in revelation?
>
> To add a philosophical twist, can the finite be anything but
> imperfect? Dave
>

As I have said repeatedly, the issue is one of how do we know what we
know. If as you say:

> So, any way we look at God's handiwork in nature, there is
> imperfection, approximation, things fitted temporarily to
> changing conditions. Why then must God act differently in revelation?

I would then ask for you to point out precisely which parts of
revelation are imperfect so that I may avoid falling into error. My
sneaking suspicion is that the parts you find imperfect might be
different from my list. In which case, what test do we use to confirm
which imperfections are really imperfections?
Received on Tue Aug 31 19:33:48 2004