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

Some concordist commentaries on Genesis 1 see photosynthesis and the
Cambrian Explosion there.

Gordon Brown

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, David Campbell wrote:

>> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 3 12:20:27 2007