tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.comments2009-05-05T03:15:42.474-07:00God and the ChemistKristian Swearingenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523268128661833485noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.post-13537078974698910102009-05-05T03:15:00.000-07:002009-05-05T03:15:00.000-07:00Hi Kristian,
Trusting God's Word and interpreting...Hi Kristian, <br />Trusting God's Word and interpreting God's Word are two different things. So I think it is unfair to equate "Bible-believing" Christians with a "literal" interpretation of the bible. (You may want to check out my post <A HREF="http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/literal-or-liberal-our-only-choices-for.html" REL="nofollow">Literal or Liberal? Our only choices for interpreting the Bible?</A>. The real question is: Do Ken Ham & Marcus Ross etc have correct biblical interpretation? I think that the many (probably the majority) of Evangelical biblical scholars would say they do not. If their biblical interpretation is poor, it is no surprise that their theology is also weak (but unfortunately swallowed whole my a large chunk of Evangelicals in the pew). I would go so far as to say their theology is IMO dangerous - dangerous to the gospel of the risen Christ.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.post-40151747944990123712009-05-04T17:20:00.000-07:002009-05-04T17:20:00.000-07:00Thanks, Steve, I'll check those authors out. Seel...Thanks, Steve, I'll check those authors out. Seely's approach appears to offer a fairly simple and objective way to deal with more scientifically problematic scriptures differently than others. I don't think this approach would fly with Ken Ham and others who say that Scripture must be taken as a whole and that Scripture should only be interpreted by Scripture, not by science or history (see this book review http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/april/33.63.html). As I outline here, the theology espoused by "Bible-believing Christians" requires a literal Genesis. So the question is: do they have the correct theology?Kristian Swearingenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523268128661833485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.post-26288409201460465222009-05-04T09:22:00.000-07:002009-05-04T09:22:00.000-07:00Hi Kristian,
Regarding making distinctions between...Hi Kristian,<br />Regarding making distinctions between interpreting Genesis (esp. ch 1-11) and the rest of scripture, I like how Paul Seely puts it: <br /><br /><I>Perhaps it should be added that there are two issues involved. Science as such and historicity. My belief is that the science in the Bible is always the science of the times. It is always accommodated by God. I have tracked this in my studies from Genesis to Revelation. Or to put it in other words, God had no intention to reveal scientific truth in Scripture and did not do so. <br /><br />Historicity is a separate, if overlapping, problem. Biblical historians say or imply that they got their historical facts from human sources. Accordingly, their history can be no better than their sources, and this is why Gen 1-11, which evidences being based in part on outdated Mesopotamian sources, is so bad, later Genesis based on oral traditions and Kings based on royal chronicles is better, and the Gospels based on eye-witness accounts are best of all. This also answers the question of how we can with logical consistency make a separation between Gen 1-11 and what follows. <br /><br />Divine revelation was saved for matters of faith and morals<br /></I> <br /><br />Seely and Denis Lamoureux (an Evangelical scientist and theologian) make similar points repeatedly in many of their articles and books.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.post-64026921514286843512009-04-09T22:12:00.000-07:002009-04-09T22:12:00.000-07:00This is the best thing I have read in months. I do...This is the best thing I have read in months. I don’t think you are in any sense alone in thinking that there might be a third (or fifth) way, in fact I think you said exactly what (tens of) thousands of people have felt but had been unable to put into words. I think the next phase probably is Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens and Harris against Francis Collins and Ken Miller on the more nuanced aspects of the debate, which will be when we as a species and a culture will start to move on, but for now we still have a way to find away to get the goblins of creationism and theocracy to stay dead. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, great peace of writing and I admire you’re willingness to draw fire from both sides.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14920316767974133278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.post-21737508541089940062009-04-09T10:40:00.000-07:002009-04-09T10:40:00.000-07:00I stumbled over your blog while reading comments o...I stumbled over your blog while reading comments on Chris Guillebeau's Art of Nonconformity. <BR/><BR/>I think this is a great topic to explore. I have a similar history, in so far as I come from a Christian upbringing and I am aware of the conflict between faith and science. In recent years I've begun to lean more towards the side of science, and my faith has devolved into some kind of luke-warm agnosticism that recognized the merits of Christianity, but can't reconcile the supernatural claims of the Bible with observed nature. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, I look forward to any future posts you have to offer. Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499798786313503602.post-60084856984773065002009-02-13T10:40:00.000-08:002009-02-13T10:40:00.000-08:00Yes, I still say that evolution is just a theory. ...Yes, I still say that evolution is just a theory. Your criteria can also fits creationism as well. One is right and one is wrong, or they are both wrong. They cannot be both right. I am thankful that you put the point that science cannot be proven. That is very honest of you. So why then, do you use methods (scientific)that cannot be fundamentally true (proven) as a bases for attempting to prove truth. Peoples devotion to science without question is alarming in my mind. I know someone may put this so I will first, I recognize the positive contribution that science has played in our society. (I am typing this note out) You also must recognize the science has been the vehicle that proliferated some of the greatest misery humanity has ever endured. Science is very limited in that someone comes along and changes our definition of a particular discipline. This is what makes them notable scientists. However, if you are basing your facts on something as fragile as science, are you comfortable with your concept of facts...<BR/><BR/>I believe that science itself is a theory.<BR/><BR/>BTW Evolution has such large holes in it that I feel it can`t stand up to scientific scrutiny if the proper methods were applied to it. Everything from the technique of dating fossils. The the lack of fossil record. The unobserved event of life springing from inorganic material. To the unobserved event of one species turning into another. (specifically in insects and bacteria that reproduce extremely rapidly) The lack of any consistent geological scale found through out the earth. There is a whole list of things I can post but I think you know where I`m coming from. Scientists hang on to this theory for fear of what the ramifications would be if this faith turned out not to be true. They don`t put this theory through the rigorous methods that they extol. If they were in religious circles, they would be called hypocrites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com