>BH>we need to keep in mind that what seems beyond the capabilities of
>>science today may be commonplace tomorrow.
>
>Then again, they may not? :-)
True. It's best not to make rash predictions about what can or cannot be
done in the future and base your arguments on them. Better to recognize
that some questions are open and leave them open.
>
[snip]
>BH>Agreed. What you are in essence doing if you invoke acts of God [in
>scientific explanations] is taking some piece of nature and building a barrier
>around it and labeling it revelation.
>
>Of course this assumes it was strictly "nature". This has not yet been
>demonstrated.
True. But, if you do not mix revelation and what may very well be just
nature, then you are free to investigate it. If at the outset you decide
that something is clearly an act of God, and you become totally convinced,
it's very difficult to back down should you be incorrect. As a progressive
creationist, you are probably aware of this phenomenon in the
pronouncements of young-earth creationists. They frequently resort to
self-contradiction to defend flood geology. And I suspect a good part of
the problem is that they "know" earth's natural history must come out the
way they view it because solid Christians like Price, Morris, etc. have
defended this model for years. To back down now would be to smear the
reputation of these men.
>
>BH>Then Christians who hold that view have a vested interested in
>>suppressing further investigation that might require them to change their
>>view.
>
>There is no evidence that progressive creationists suppress further
>scientific investigation. If they did, it would be wrong. All truth is
>God's truth.
I don't see progressive creationists as trapped in their model to the
extent that young-earth creationists are (you yourself are living proof
that they're not.) My concerns are mainly about the young-earth
creationists.
>
>BH>Because after all, you are now dealing with revelation. And
>>changing revelation rightly makes anyone who is a serious Christian
>>uncomfortable.
>
>Revelation is not changing. What might need changing is our
>*interpretation* of revelation.
Totally agree. IMO the young-earth crationists seem to be confusing
revelation with interpretation.
>I still think the PC model is the
>best explanation of Bible and science. But then, that might be
>my faulty interpretation! :-)
>
I still think the EC model is the
best explanation of Bible and science. But then, that might be
my faulty interpretation! :-). As long as we are willing to admit that our
interpretationis can be faulty, we can keep learning and -- it is to be
hoped -- improving our understanding of God's revelation.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)