"Blocher suggested why the author of Genesis used this approach:
'The author's intention is not to supply us with a chronology of origins. It
is possible that the logical order he has chosen coincides broadly with the
actual sequence of the facts of cosmogeny; and provide a theology of the
sabbath. The text is composed as the author meditates on the finished work,
so
that we may understand how the creation is related to God and what is its
significance for mankind.' [****YES!***** -- JSB]
"The control belief behind the framework approach includes a rejection of the
literalist's control belief that the correct interpretation must of
necessity be literal and the the text is not difficult to understand. The
control belief for one who holds the framework interpretation says that one
must give great attention to the text. ... [T]he person who follows the
framework approach maintains that details could be there, but they are not
expressed literally.
"In favor of the framework interpretation is the structure of the text. [Russ
goes into a more detailed discussion here. See The Impact of Evolutionary
Theory, pp. 177-178]<<
Jim, believe it or not we probably arent that far apart here depending upon
the answer to a particular question. Does the order of the
events/proclamations in Genesis 1 reflect the order in which they were
carried out? If you say that the order the fulfillment of these events is
the same as Genesis 1, then we still differ. If you say that the order is
not necessarily literal, then we finally have some common ground (small
though it be). The problem which I have always faced as a geoscientist is
that the order of these events is not at all what we learn from scientific
data. The view that these are proclamations solves that problem.
If you and Russ do not believe that the days must be literal, then why
should the order be literal? I am ordering Russ' book tomorrow.
My view allows the order of completion to be whatever is required by the
scientific data.
Jim wrote:
>>My view comes from people who are doing the research. We all have to rely
on experts at this point. My experts tell me this is an argument from
ignorance of the function of the psuedogene. It is quite dangerous to make
what we don't know a foundation of one's view. Remember how confident
evolutionists were with "junk DNA" just a few years ago?<<
There is a big difference between junk DNA and pseudogenes. As I understand
it the junk DNA consisted of repeating sequences which were quit monotonous,
just 2 or 3 nucleotides repeated thousands of times.. We know what a gene
looks like. We know what a gene does. Genes constitute 3% of the genome (See
Science Feb. 4, 1994, p. 608) They had never seen anything quite like the
junk and had never seen the function of junk like they
"Some of the earliest indications that junk DNA might have important
functions came from studies on gene control. Theos studies found that genes
have regulatory sequences, short segments of DNA that serve as targets for
the 'transcription factors' that activate genes. Many of these regulatory
sequences lie outside the protein-coding sequences - in the genetic garbage
can. "There's at least five regulatory elements for each [human] gnee,
probably many more,' says gene control expert Robert Tjian of the University
of California, Berkeley. "For a long time it wasn't appreciated how
widespread theos elements can be, but now it seems that patches of really
important regulatory elements can be buried among the junk DNA." (Science,
Feb 4, 1994, p. 608)
Now when an identical copy of a gene is found in another part of the genome,
and this copy is missing one or two of its regulatory sequences, the gene can
not work.
Here is the difference between a pseudogene and junk DNA. We don't know
the function, if any, of some of the junk DNA. We do know the function of
the gene. We can also find out if parts are missing. So I would disagree
that this is an analogous situation with the junk. And thus it is not an
argument from ignorance.
glenn