It is good to start with agreement! I recognise that your question
was probing the way science can be used to reinterpret the Bible. My
response sought to do justice to the thought that God is the author
of all truth - and that we are to seek a harmony, not insist on a
conflict. As we know well, there are plenty of people around who
believe that the Bible teaches geocentricity - curious common ground
between the geocentrists and a number of people who demonstrate
considerable hostility to the whole idea of revealed truth!
I recognise that many pre-Copernican Christians did claim that the
Bible teaches geocentricity. My response is not to say the Bible is
wrong - but that our understanding of the bible is deficient. I am
now of the opinion that the Bible does not teach either geocentricity
or heliocentricity - as it uses the language of appearance in a pre-
scientific or a-scientific sense. Whilst Christians COULD have come
to a clearer understanding of this hermeneutical principle without
the Copernican revolution, it is a matter of history that it did not.
Whether the evolution/creation debate is like the
Copernican/geocentrist debate is a matter for debate. I can see many
differences. Not the least is that we are dealing here with much
more than the language of appearance. However, as there are many
issues being discussed at present on the Reflector, I'll hold back on
this one for the time being.
Glenn Morton asked Paul Durham on 13th July:
"Do you believe in Copernican astronomy? The ancient Christians
original understanding of the Scripture was that the earth was the
center of the solar system. They used the science of their day to
interpret the Bible. Today most Christians have departed from that
understanding. If we must believe that the Bible teaches that the
earth is the center of the solar system, then most people would then
conclude that the Bible is erroneous. They would be correct. Should
the modern Christians not have changed?"
I accept the point. The answer is a better hermeneutic. Science may
be used to explore the validity of our present understanding - but we
are seeking a better understanding. We are not to force Scripture to
conform to science, nor vice versa.
The meaning of the "Genesis Kinds" is one of the topics affected by
the language of appearance concept. How much technical content is in
the phrase? I'll post some thoughts on this in a reply to Glenn -
whose recent comments bring the topic into focus.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***