Response to Moorad and Dr. Jack

Note: I had inadvertentdly sent this response only to Dr. Jack Syme, when
I in fact had intended it for public consumption. This is a caveat to all
here of the "reply" and "reply all" features of an e-mail server.

God's Peace,

Roger

----------------------------------
Dr. Jack,

I won't misquote you, if you won't misquote me. However, please help out
this poor "fool." And, I'm a confused fool at that -- and that's the
worst kind!

My comments/answers are interspersed below.

> Please dont misquote me, or misinterpret me Roger, as you seem to be so
> willing to do, I am not a YECer.

I didn't think you were. Moorad is apparently YEC. Give me a little credit.

> But this comment of yours:
>
> "using our human reason (which I believe to be a gift from God)
> to come to a tentative conclusion now. The overwhelming evidence of a
> careful examination of nature via the inductive-empirical method of
> science ..."
>
> if not qualified by an attitude of humility, and recognization of Man's
> limitations and fallibility, limitations which extend both to the realm of
> understanding science and scripture, is clearly a
> humanistic/natuaralistic
> attitude, not a Christian one. In fact this comment sounds surprising
> coming from a scientist in the early 21st century.

Do you believe that God created a universe with the ability to be studied
by His creatures? Or do believe that He holds back selective knowledge and
thus "tricks" us poor slobs into thinking things are different than they
appear?

> Whether or not you agree with Moorad's views completely or not, if you
> think
> that science is going to give you all of the answers, you are a fool. I
> didnt think that Moorad was saying that "science had not caught up with
> the
> Bible yet," but that there are limitations to what we can know.
>
> I hope you dont really think that with reason alone, Man can understand
> all
> things, I hope I am misinterpreting you.

Thanks for the "fool" thing, that's really sweet of you. What gave you
the impression that I thought that "science is going to give me all the
the answers?" With regards to the age of Earth and Cosmos, science has
given us *enough* answers to conclude that both of these are billions (not
thousands, not millions, not trillions) of years old, and that there has
been a change in the biosphere over time, and that there is no consistent
evidence of a "literal" reading of Genesis 1-11, including no evidence for
a global deluge.

If you mean that I think that via scientific method we can figure
"everything" out, including the spiritual nature of humanity (and a
fortiori of God), then, yes, you are misinterpreting me. I never implied
anything of the sort.

>
> But, I also think that Moorad's comment was a reasonable one, and not
> drivel
> (which I agree was too harsh of a term) . Being finite I dont think we
> will ever understand everything even once we are sanctified. But how can
> you defend your position that finite and sinful Man, can ever be able to
> comprehend everything through reason alone?
>
> Jack Syme MD
>

Ok, Doc, my apologies to Moorad and everyone else for the "drivel"
comment. Apparently I misinterpreted what he wrote. If he were
implying that God could have created with an appearance of deep time and
common descent, then, yes, that would have been "drivel." I'll give him
the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else.

On a related theme, I'd like to hear your comments as a physician on the
efficacy of scientific method vis-a-vis trusting God. I have the utmost
respect for medical professionals who include prayer as part of their
practive, both for the patient and for wisdom for giving the proper
treatment. This is an excellent example of the coming together of science
and reason.

However, I was just wondering -- and I'm really speaking off the cuff here
--- what if when you get to Heaven and see the big picture, you find out
that you would have been better off simply praying for your patients? I
mean the scientific method is merely a human construct, far inferior to
scriptural revelation, and healing power of the Divine is certainly
superior to that of human construct -- to all that scientific business you
learned in med. school. Maybe you and your professors were being misled
into thinking your knowledge obtained from the scientific method were
effective when really it was a red herring distracting from the real
healing power of God?

This is a weak and stupid analogy to be sure, and my apologies if it
offends, but it does bear some similarity to the Origins issue. Maybe
scientists are all wrong -- maybe, just maybe, Earth and Cosmos were
created a few thousands of years ago by a god who delights in deceiving a
very small minority of people in the 21st century? Then, continuing the
medical analogy, maybe you will discover that you have been wasting
hundreds of thousands of dollars of patients' and insurance carriers'
dough on these fancy medical treatments, EMGs and the like, when you could
have just prayed for you patients?

We have to be consistent in our view of Faith and Reason, afterall.

God's Peace,

Roger
Received on Mon Oct 25 21:34:45 2004