Re: [asa] FW: Examples and Counterexamples of Concordism

> By concordism, I mean the view held by progressive creationists that both
> the Bible and nature are true revelations and as such science and theology
> must agree when both the Bible and nature are properly understood.
>
> I would like to know what people think are the best 3-5 examples of
> concordism between science and the first two chapters of Genesis and also
> the top 3-5 primary exceptions/objections to that concordism.

This definition is rather broader than a common definition of
concordism. Concordism is often used specifically of the view that
the Bible (especially Genesis 1) contains scientific assertions
understandable though modern science. E.g., the days of Genesis 1
reflect an actual historical sequence of creation, though not a single
week; similarly, interpretations of other passages such as "spreading
out the heavens"=cosmic expansion following the big bang would be
regarded as concordistic in the more restrictive definition. Under
this more restrictive definition, the view that, although the Bible
and nature are true revelations and science and theology will agree
when both are done correctly, the Bible actually has little to say
about science and typically uses ordinary, phenomenological language,
would not be considered concordistic. E.g., a framework understanding
of Genesis 1 asserts that the proper theological understanding of
Genesis 1 is that it does not intend to convey information about
sequence, time, or method of creation, and the effort to match up
Genesis 1 with current scientific understanding is simply missing the
point.

The cosmic background microwave radiation reflects the point at which
the universe had cooled enough for light to separate from darkness.
This is one of the better correlations between current scientific
models and the text of Genesis 1. On the sequence of days, the
correlation between physical evidence and the Genesis sequence of
origination depends on whether you take Genesis as asserting "all of
these were created, then all of these, then all of these" or "things
in this category began to be created, then this category, then this
category." In the latter case, there is only the glaring discrepancy
between astronomical objects being the oldest yet not appearing until
day 4; the rest are in sequence of the first appearance of any
mentioned item (macroalgae coming before macroanimals). However, if
you want everything listed on one day to be created before anything on
the next day, you won't be happy with the geologic record.

The fact that Genesis 2 and other passages that talk about creation do
not follow the same sequence as Genesis 1 suggests that sequence was
not a major consideration or interpretation to the original audience.
(not counting II Esdras; Luther's approach to this book commends
itself).

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.