Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:10:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I didn't really want to step into the evolutionary debate as it's so much
> plowed ground, but there's just something about speaking your mind that's
> just irrisistable once in a while :)
>
> No no-- you responded scientificially:
> "While it is intellectually stimulating, it misses the scientific evidence for
> creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day
> creation."
>
> And THEN you stated the philosophy as derived FROM the scientific:
> "Yes, God could have done anything He wanted - then why say He did something
> different?"
>
> The reason you were given is BASED on the scientific-- NOT the
> philosophical. Why say He did it differently than the Bible seems to say?
> Because what the Bible says doesn't mesh with science. Hence, the question
> becomes can we re-interpret the Bible to be in accordance with evolution?
> The question assumes already that we're accepting the scientific principle
> already as valid.
>
> Your only recourse following this assumption is to show that the Bible's
> version of creationism IS NOT compatible with evolutionary theory. But I
> expect you'd prefer simply to not make the assumption to begin with, which
> goes RIGHT back to the scientific argument.
Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion...
The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with
evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation.
There are 2 fundamental, particularly relevant, intreptations of the Bible -
'literal' and 'figurative' as it pertains to the question of creation and the
Genesis account. There is a vast field of study which addresses this:
'hermaneutics.' (Biblical interpretation)
If you believe that the Bible is interpreted figuratively, then you are left to
determine for yourself what the figurative language means. Which, then, you
can equally apply it to evolution or any other theory you can dream up. In
doing this, you subjugate God - His book - to man's figurative interpretations
- I have no problem if you do that as long as you accept the implications of
that.
Most evalgelical Christians reject that premise.
They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible - that God would not
shroud His activities if He presents them. This allows for vast areas that God
does not address... But for those He does, they are accepted as literal.
This has its share of implications as well. Particularly when it confronts
science.
(digression - off-topic)
Science began as a means to better understand God's creation, and has
subsequently moved beyond a theistic foundation to a secular foundation. That
many contemporary science proponents espouse a god-less world leads them to a
god-less view of everything. Now, because I recognize that this is a starting
place for some, I'm really ok with it. But you have to be able to recognize
your biases and see beyond them too. If all confirmatory evidence is accepted
and all non-confirmatory evidence is rejected, you cannot see beyond bias.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what you were after in this thread. (...) EXACTLY! And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's all interpretive. The point of course being (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| I didn't really want to step into the evolutionary debate as it's so much plowed ground, but there's just something about speaking your mind that's just irrisistable once in a while :) (...) (I'm assuming that you mean "it" to be the scientific (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
