Re: Provine Ridicules TE's

Greg Billock (billgr@cco.caltech.edu)
Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:55:00 -0800 (PST)

Glenn,

[...]

> No one has said that the flood and Genesis are the MOST important. But they
> are not meaningless either. Adam and Eve are viewed as the originators of
> sin. If you have Adam and Eve after sin was on the earth, then they are not
> the originators of sin contra what the Bible seems to indicate.

> My disagreement comes from the belief that the problems of geology are
> minor. If God doesn't know and can't relate what happened in Earth's
> history, then is He really God?

I think that Christian theology is not a geological theory alongside other
geological theories. This is quite a shift from what is usually taken to
be the point of the Christian faith, and I have criticized those who haved
moved in this direction. However much inspiration the consideration of
earth's ancient history may give us, it seems to me to be a very broad
(when even present) constraint on theological options.

Since I don't think the Bible (or any other book) offers God's version of
historical events, I don't think we have access to some divine relation of
what has happened to the Earth in the past--what I think we *do* have are
more-and-less valuable attempts by people to try and fit what they can
determine about Earth's past into their theology. This is typically a
mythological enterprise, however, not a scientific one, although in my
opinion the best science tends to contribute to the best myth.

-Greg