RE: The Fall is not science, was : RTB vs Dick Fischer

The laws of nature are generalizations of historical propositions. One cannot generalize from a unique event. Therefore, the Fall of Man is outside the realm of science but may have occurred in which case it would be a historical, not scientific, question.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Sun 4/16/2006 7:24 PM
To: RFaussette@aol.com
Cc: d.nield@auckland.ac.nz; drsyme@cablespeed.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: The Fall is not science, was : RTB vs Dick Fischer

Rich:
I did not say "scientifically inaccurate".In my opionion the Fall of Adam
and Eve is not a matter for scientific investigation, and it is a big
mistake to assume that it is. The important thing is that it is
"theologically accurate".
Don

> In a message dated 4/15/2006 9:44:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> d.nield@auckland.ac.nz writes:
> Rich:
> I would say "theologically accurate" rather than "scientifically accurate
> Don
>
>> The fall of Adam and Eve is a timeless and scientifically accurate
>> description of human nature and its predicament.
>>
>> rich faussette
>>
> We can agree to disagree, but I am also right now posting my paper True
> Religion on an IASCR list. These are scientists who study the congnitive
> science of
> religion. The evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald has just posted my
> recollection of HBES2000 on his website. If you see something
> scientifically
> inaccurate in my paper True Religion, please point it out to me. I respect
> your
> opinion, but would ask that you be a little more generous in your
> criticism by
> specifying what is "scientifically inaccurate."
>
> rich faussette
>
Received on Sun Apr 16 21:15:37 2006