>>I have several questions.
>>
>>1. What is to be harmonized with Science, the Bible or our interpretation
> of
>>the Bible?
>
>The proper question is:
>
>1. What is to be harmonized, our interpretations in science, or our
>interpretations in Scripture?
>
>When stated this way the answer falls out of the question and is obvious.
>Any practicing scientist knows that the interpretations of data in the
>laboratory are subject to the same levels of interpretations as are
>religious views.
I stand corrected, partially. I agree that there is interpretation in all
science. I do not agree that the interpretation is of the same kind or given
to the same level of variability as are the interpretations of Genesis 1 and
2. There are 13 interpts. of Genesis 1 and I have counted somewhere around 15
of Genesis 2.
It is not much of an interpretation that the fossils buried deeper than
100-150 feet deep in the Williston basin of North Dakota, are not at all like
any living form. This is especially true of the vertebrates. The only pieces
of interpretation required are 1. fossils are the remains of formerly living
creatures. and 2. that rock layers represent a relative temporal order with
the oldest rocks lower down. The lack of living forms lower down means that
at the time that those layers were deposited, no living animals were trapped
in the sediments. Why? That is interpretation. Maybe none were living in the
area, maybe living forms could escape burial or maybe, when we observe the
same pattern in similar rocks over the entire world, we are forced to conclude
that no modern forms lived at that time.
>
>>2. When will physical science be complete?
>>
>>2a If never, does this mean that we can never draw conclusions and offer
>>theories? Will we always look though the glass darkly?
>
>True, physical knowledge will never be complete, but that does not prevent
>us from drawing tentative conclusions based upon the partial knowledge that
>we do possess, and in some areas such as math and physics, these conclusions
>have yielded spectacular successes, such as returning men from the moon
>(where, incidentally they did not sink up to their necks in meteoric dust).
>
Even young earth creationists have admitted that the lunar dust bit was wrong.
Modern measurements of cosmic dust shows that there is very little compared
to the 1958 value which is what the creationists always cite. Let me point out
a quote from my book,
" The most comprehensive discussion of this problem is by the young-earth
creationists, Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush. They conclude,
"Should creationists then continue to use the moon dust as apparent
evidence for a young moon, earth and solar system? Clearly, the answer is no.
The weight of the evidence as it currently exists shows no inconsistency
within the evolutionists' case, so the burden of proof is squarely on
creationists if they want to argue that based on the meteoritic dust the moon
is young."~Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush, "Moon Dust and the Age of the
Solar System," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 7:1, 1993, p. 39, cited
in Glenn R. Morton, Foundation, Fall and Flood, (Dallas: DMD Publishing,
1995), p. (I don't know. I am embarrassed. I sent off for another printing so
I can't look there and can't look up the page number in th file on the
computer because of a font bug in word perfect. Look up Snelling in the
index)
>When they become (or are replaced by) scientists. You cannot expect
>laypersons to understand the nature of science. And when some agency such
>as the federal government supplies funds to pay the salaries of people
>trained to examine these data.
But I can and should be able to expect that Christians who presume to write
books would do their homework. Which, geologically speaking, they aren't as
you are aware.