Re: Response to Moorad and Dr. Jack

And this was my response to him. ;)

Ok well if you are saying that you dont think that science has all the
answers then you are not a fool.

I. admittedly, bristled at your language with moorad calling it drivel and
childish. Even though my views apparently coincide with yours, the
non-literal interpretation of Genesis, overwhelming evidence for the old age
of the universe, and I usually strongly argue AGAINST my YEC friends about
being deceived by apparent age, I still think that scientific theories are
well short of complete.

What is wrong with his idea that things will be revealed to us at a later
time? Do you really want to come across as so sure of science that you
would competely discount other views from well meaning Christians, that
perhaps God is telling us things in his word that is different from what our
scientific understanding of things is? I am at least willing to admit that
science could be wrong. Not because God is deceiving us, but because Man
tends to want to put himself in the center of the universe, and put reason
ahead of all else. I dont think that YEC is true, but I am willing to admit
the scientists could be wrong.

Scientific paradigms change all the time as you know. What we understand of
things now may, in the future, be seen as completely off the mark, and the
scientific truth might be completely different. I dont think that is the
case. I think science gets closer all of the time to describing how the
universe works, but I am willing to accept that my understanding of things
could be wrong. I am finite and sinful, and my vision is clouded.

I think I see what you are getting at with the medical analogy. I have said
to my YEC friends at one point or another, who frankly at times frustrate me
with their claims that scientists are liars. That they dont seem to have
any problem going to see one of these "liars" when they are sick. Or that
they use modern technology, created by "liars", etc.

I dont incorporate prayer into my practice. Honestly, they are not coming
to see me for that, and the majority of them are not Christian anyway, at
least as far as I can tell. I think that prayer is helpful for those that
do it. I am skeptical of studies of prayer in curing disease in the sense
of remote effects.

But, I think that as Christians, we need to be willing to admit that things
as we understand it from a scientific point of view, (as much as it seems
hard to believe given the evidence to the contrary,) might be far short of
the truth, as a possibility.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger G. Olson" <rogero@saintjoe.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: 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 Tue Oct 26 01:40:52 2004