Re: A Second J. I. Packer Quotation, this time he's sure.

Your comparison of the concept of a flat earth, to the
concept of evolution is not valid.

Anyone can understand what a globe vs. a flat surface is.
 But the idea of variation and natural selection is far
from intuitive. If he has no knowledge of the area, I
think it is fair to cut him some slack, even if his
ignorance on the issue is profound.

Not everyone has knowledge of just about everything that
you do George. ;)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:11:10 -0400
  "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray"
><grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:50 AM
>Subject: Re: A Second J. I. Packer Quotation, this time
>he's sure.
>
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> FWIW, Packer is undisputedly one of the most respected
>>of evangelical
>> theologians. His views reflect the common evangelical
>>and largely
>> traditional orthodox protestant understanding of the
>>Bible. Universalism
>> is found in neither of those. For you to react to
>>negatively to him
>> reveals that you have fundamental disagreements not just
>>with Packer, but
>> with the evangelical Christian perspective.
>>
>> Of course, you are most welcome to do so, but don't
>>expect that your
>> concerns will cause any red flags to jump out in our
>>minds. One of the
>> strategies of the skeptic is to set Biblical teachings
>>against each other.
>> Evangelicals, on the other hand, believing there is one
>>primary author
>> behind all of scripture, seek out an understanding that
>>lets both
>> apparently antithetical views stand. While I freely
>>admit that we haven't
>> solved all the problems, this enterprise has been around
>>for a long
>> time--there are satisfactory answers, for those willing
>>to be satisfied,
>> for most of these objections that you raise.
>>
>> All this being said, what Packer has to say about hell
>>is irrelevant to
>> what he has to say about Genesis--unless you don't
>>believe the genetic
>> fallacy is really a fallacy. Finally, I think again
>>we're on the edge of
>> faith-science concerns here. Let not turn this list
>>into--"here's all of
>> Ed's concerns with traditional Christianity".
>
>I do think though that Ed's point with regard to Packer's
>expression of uncertainty with regard to evolution is
>legitimate. It's one thing for a non-scientist to
>recognize his or her limitations and not express views
>about technical details of theories that are currently
>debated by experts. It's quite another thing to be so
>scientifically illiterate that one doesn't know basic
>scientific realities. It would be quite understandable
>for Packer to say about Gould & Eldredge's theory of
>punctuated equilibrium that "On the theory itself, as a
>non-scientist, watching from a distance the disputes of
>experts, I suspend judgment." There is far less excuse
>for making such a statement about evolution itself, the
>claim that there has been descent with modification. One
>suspects that he has been hornswoggled by
>anti-evolutionists into thinking that evolution itself
>really is disputed by any significant number of experts.
>
>One might as well say "As a non-expert I suspend judgment
>on whether the earth is round or flat." You don't have
>to know about satellite geodesy, quadrupole moments, &c
>to know the answer.
>
>Shalom
>George
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 14 12:43:41 2004