RE: I wasn't "discounting" Glenn's story or his questions

Roger, again you do not know how to read what I write. Where did I even
mention the word "Heaven"? Where did I say anything about the Cosmos and
evolution? For your info, I have published papers on the very early and
early universe.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Roger G. Olson
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:12 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: I wasn't "discounting" Glenn's story or his questions

Yes, "drivel" is pretty strong, and I stand by that term. That's why I
took the effort to post the response. It's so easy for fideists to
ignore
evidence selectively for an ancient Cosmos and evolution with this
childishly simplistic response that "we will find out all about it in
Heaven."

We're on Earth now, and I believe God is not a deceiver and allows us to
ascertain what we are able to within our present technological state
about
nature. All we are now able to ascertain about nature points to a
billions year old Earth and Cosmos, change in the biosphere over time,
and
no consistent evidence for a global flood.

Surely, you are not positing a deceiver god? That's would be the
conclusion I would come to from the evidence available at present. It
points consistently to an other than literal reading of Genesis 1-11.
Why
would God want to trick us poor slobs who have taken the time and effort
to learn some science>

Roger

> Roger--
>
> "Drivel" is pretty strong. Moorad did not say that we will know all
> about nature in this lifetime, or ever here on Earth. One day we
> believers will be in Heaven. There are going to be a lot of bruised
> foreheads as we hit our hands to our heads as we say, "Oh! So that's
how
> you did it, God!"
>
> Blessings,
>
> --Bill Yates
>
> Roger G. Olson wrote:
>
> (quote from Moorad)
>>>Experimental sciences are quite definite and the conclusions from
>>>them are unavoidable. However, there are areas of science, e.g.,
>>>historical sciences, where the issues are not as clear cut. **** It
is
>>> my
>>>belief that the day we know all about nature we will find that there
>>>is no contradiction between Scripture and the findings of science.
****
>>> Of
>>>course, how we can extrapolate from what we know about science to the
>>>nonphysical and how we can extrapolate from the nonphysical to the
>>>physical is not easy and leads to speculative thinking, which I
>>>consider a waste of time.
>>>
>>>Do I deny the inerrancy of scripture and take Genesis non literally
as
>>>well? Am I like Lewis a conservative with a liberal tinge? You
decide.
>>>
>>>Moorad
>>>
>
>>
>> The day we know all about nature? What are you talking about? This
is
>> an
>> incredible hedge. The statement between the asterisks is basically
>> "Science hasn't caught up with the Bible yet." This is an
embarassingly
>> fideistic attitude. I thought we were trying to get beyond this kind
of
>> drivel on this Listserve?
>>
>> Roger
>
> --
> --Bill Yates
> --mailto:billyates@billyates.com
> --http://www.billyates.com
> --CD Reviewer, Webmaster, Roots66.com
> --Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly
> --Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing
>

--