>Glenn can "suggest" all he likes! :-) In critiquing a scientific
>theory it is not encumbent for the critic to offer his own theory.
>Glenn's theory has to stand on its own two feet.
But the criticisms will not be taken seriously by the scientific community
unless the critic offers an alternative. If your objective is simply to
reinforce belief within the Christian community(a laudable objective), you
will have some success critiquing scientists' models without offering
alternatives. If you want to engage the scientists, you need to either
clearly label your critiques as theological _or_ offer a scientific
alternative. To fail to make these distinctions makes you seem dishonest
to the scientific community -- not a good position from which to defend the
faith or win new Christians.
>
>Glenn knows I am not a geologist and I don't pretend to be one. I am
>mainly concerned with being faithful the the *Biblical* picture. IMHO
>Glenn's Mediterranean Flood model is not consistent with the Biblical
>picture.
>
Glenn's book resulted from a desire to interpret Scripture honestly in a
way that doesn't fly in the face with known geological facts. I submit
Glenn's commitment to Scripture is as strong as yours. Glenn's
interpretation could be wrong, and he acknowledges it. But he's trying to
deal with both bodies of evidence. While you are quite justified in
defending your view of Scripture, I think you are premature in dismissing
Glenn's alternative.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)