Re: [asa] RE: ICR vs. Francis Collins

> So these are apparently (from ICR’s viewpoint) ‘fundamental doctrines of
> God’s Word:’

But in reality, their fundamental doctrines are that the ICR's version
of these things are true.

For example, Collins certainly would hold that there is plenty of
history recorded in the Bible. Any sensible and well-informed
unbeliever will admit that, too. The key issues are really a) is the
Bible historically reliable in its account of the essentials of what
Jesus did? -which is essential to Christianity and b) is the ICR
historical interpretation of Genesis 1 (disregarding Genesis 2) and
the following chapters correct?

Of course, there are further nuances-whether you hold to inerrancy of
Scripture, how you decide how to interpret a passage, etc. But the
key error is that the ICR (or other creation science source) is making
itself out to be proclaiming Scripture. They are saying that it's not
good enough to believe the gospel-you must also believe in creation
science. Paul had something to say about such things in Galatians.

-- 
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.