> Regarding the creation of man, we should look at the whole of Scriptural
> teaching, which to me makes it a special, creative, interventionist,
> non-ancestral event...unless there are compelling reasons to re-categorize
> this view. For you, science seems to justify this, but for me the data
> are too far removed and weak to compel a change.
I'm not sure how Terry Gray will respond. For myself, I would agree with
you that "the whole of Scripture" lead me to expect the scientific
evidence to point towards the creation of man as being recent,
interventionist, and non-ancestral. I was surprised to find evidence
pointing otherwise. If we agree that a re-categorization is not
_precluded_ by scripture, we can then fairly debate just how compelling
the various scriptural and scientific arguments are. (If we think that
re-categorization IS precluded by scripture, then the discussion will be
quite short. :-)
Could you give an example of where YOU found "compelling
[extra-scriptural] reasons for re-categorizing" some scriptural
interpretation? Perhaps this example will do:
Consider the separation of the dry land from the oceans. Would you agree
that the whole of scriptural teaching (e.g. Genesis 1, Psalm 104) implies
that it was a special, creative, interventionist event ... unless there
are compelling reasons to re-categorize this view? How would you compare
the relative strengths of THIS scriptural argument vs. the argument for
the non-ancestral creation of man? How would you compare the relative
strengths of the scientific evidence for the standard geologist's model of
the formation of the earth's oceans vs. the scientific evidence for
human/primate ancestry?
If that is not a good example, perhaps you can offer another one (maybe a
non-scientific one).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to make everyone's day a little more surreal. | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu