Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Hi Denis,

I actually wonder if using the terms "science" and "history" in this context isn't - in the end analysis - anachronistic.

I'd offer the observation that what "pre-modern" societies do is tell stories - they don't do "science", and they don't record "history". And if one can escape the need to force Genesis into either category, then the result is very liberating. One can even begin to read Genesis theologically as per the entire point of the narrative!

Here I think much benefit might be gained from a familiarity with the field of ethnohistory - which discipline gives some interesting insights into the way non-Western and pre-modern societies deal with their past. It's on my list of subjects to get around to "one day."

Actually, as I think about it, this might be more or less another way of putting your entreaty of "Separate, don't conflate", viz; if one can discriminate between "history", "science", and "story" -- where "story" is a way of conveying meaning (theological meaning in the case of Genesis) -- then one is, I think, well on the way to resolving the "problem" which arises in light of our modernist inability to see that there is more than one way of conveying spiritual truth.

Blessings,
Murray

Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
> Dear Bernie,
> You are a scrapper my friend!
>
> You write:
>> Ancient theological idea:
>> Adam was the first human to sin.
>>
>> This statement is nothing but theology
>
> NOT true. It's ancient science (creation
> and existence of Adam) delivering an inerrant
> and Holy Spirit-inspired theology (sin is
> very real and humans are sinners).
>
> Bernie: Separate, Don't Conflate!
>
> Best,
> Denis

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 28 19:31:45 2009