>Jim Bell concluded his assessment of Glenn's three major posts thus:
>"I prefer the story God tells, about the origin of man not out of
>animal ancestors, but as a special creation. I'll stick with
>that one for now."
>
>I share Jim's thinking that man is a special creation of God - but
>not Jim's particular way of harmonising this belief with the
>anthropological data (where, perhaps surprisingly, I have much more
>common ground with Glenn!).
I know that you, David, know this but I want to re-iterate that I too
share with you and Jim the view that man is a special creation of God.
This the Scripture clearly says. the differences between Jim and I, are in
the manner of that creation.
>Since Jim has explained something of his own harmonisation approach
>on this Reflector, Glenn seems to overstate the problem. Jim does
>have an explanatory framework, although he does not get involved with
>the details as much as Glenn.
>
You are not the first to criticise my occasional tendency to over state.
:-) I might add that the old saying is quite true in science, "The Devil
is in the details."
>The words I take exception to here are: "facts simply never mean what
>the scientist says they do". This is where presuppositions become
>critical. There is a positivist view of science which tries to make
>the discipline objective and independent of the human beings
>practicing the science. According to this approach, facts are
>objective and provide a basis for building theories and models. But
>can we abstract "facts" from the people discovering them? Accepting
>for the moment that scientists can agree about the "facts", can we go
>on and say "facts mean what the scientist says they do"? I submit
>that the answer is "no". Facts are interpreted by scientists, and
>their presuppositions play an important role in the way facts are
>"read". Jim is entitled to question those interpretations without
>being regarded as departing from the scientific method.
>
I partially agree with you here. While the interpretations made by the
scientists can most assuredly be questioned and challenged, I was
remarking upon the tendency I see in Jim and many anti-evolutionists to
almost never believe what a scientist says. It sometimes appears that
anti-evolutionary christians believe that scientists are from Crete, in
the Biblical sense. (see Titus 1:12). While not everything a scientist
says is true, surely not everything they say about origins and related
issues is false either.
>It is also understandable that there is scepticism: where is the
>evidence of farming? or of building cities? etc. If we push these
>questions too far, harmonisation will never be possible! The
>Christian conviction is that God is the author of all truth, so less
>than perfect "fits" are not to be regarded as failure. The
>presupposition is that there is a harmony - and apologists should
>seek to constructively critique the various proposed harmonisations
>with the confidence that the jigsaw is capable of being completed.
One must distinguish between failure and a prediction. My views make
certain predictions, H. erectus or H. habilis to be found much earlier
than the current 2+/- million years ago, and that there should be some
evidence of farming where I said the flood was.
One might consider the H.erectus a failure at this point since there is
paleontological research going on looking for such remains. But as one
goes back in time, the geographic range in which the fossil species lived,
gets smaller and smaller. This means that one must look in the correct
place.
The second prediction concerning the Mediteranean flood, would require a
search. It will be difficult to look where I suggest. But at this point
it can not be called a failure because no one has really done much
looking unless you consider a few 6-inch boreholes into the Miocene strata
to be a thorough search.
One thing Christian apologists avoid like the plague is testable
scientific predictions of future discoveries. I really think we avoid
this for fear of being wrong. I am not afraid of being wrong. In the oil
business we are wrong a lot of the time. But we can never hope to be
proved right if we don't make verifiable predictions. I will let my
views stand or fall based upon future discoveries which is what any
historical or scientific view must do.
Can Jim make a single prediction about future discoveries which his view
requires? Can Henry Morris? Can Hugh Ross? I can think of absolutely no
data which their view or any christian apologistetical view predicts. And
successful prediction is the only way that any viewpoint can be shown to
be correct.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm