[Vision2020] Creation vs. science (was NSA's accrediting agency)
Joe Campbell
joekc at adelphia.net
Sat Dec 22 23:08:01 PST 2007
To the contrary, Gary, I have nothing but praise to offer for your "modicum of
skepticism for scientists" and "Christian apologists."
I just wonder why it is that you decided to truck this out now yet remained
silent about it when the local Pastor was extolling the virtues of slavery. You
adopt a rather odd and convenient form of skepticism if nothing else!
--
Joe Campbell
---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
=============
I like kittens and puppies.
g
(I'm waiting for Mr. Campbell to retranslate this into my latest
anti-science, pro-creationism, condemnation of the theory of evolution and
all things academic.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Creation vs. science (was NSA's accrediting agency)
> Keely,
>
> On the whole, I agree with you! A few things to note in particular.
>
> 1. Creationism is not really opposed to evolution theory. The former is a
> theory about the
> creation of the universe, the latter about its development. Clearly, the
> world could have
> been created by God AND evolved after that (which is close to what I
> believe).
>
> 2. The real conflict, as you note, is between a certain kind of creation
> story, accepted by
> Christian fundamentalists, and the theory of evolution. I have an
> opposition to Christian
> fundamentalism, in part, because it strikes me as more of a political
> movement than a
> religious movement. I could go on here but I’d like to keep it short for
> now.
>
> 3. In Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (1997), the
> physicist and
> theologian, Ian Barbour describes four possible relations between religion
> and science:
> conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. I think that you (and
> I) advocate the last
> – the eventual integration of science and religion. Another thing I
> dislike about Christian
> fundamentalism is that they advocate the first: you have to choose between
> God and
> evolution theory. What an impossible choice! The relationship between
> religion and
> science is complex and there are pluses and minuses with regard to any of
> the choices, so
> I don’t want to simplify this discussion. Still, I believe that conflict
> suits certain political
> motivations and this is the main reason why some people select it.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> I hesitate to jump in on this because I'm back in the Seattle area with
> family and I won't be able to get to a computer as often as I'd like, but
> I would suggest a way to shed some light on any purported science vs. God
> argument. First, though, I want to assert two things: One, I believe God
> created the world and everything in it. Beyond that, because of my trust
> in the beauty and order of the world around us, I believe that true
> science will never contradict that assertion. Believers should embrace
> science, and no actual truth will ever contradict the Truth we know in
> God.
>
> The streetfight appears to be between those who assert the full truth of
> the Bible, as read literally, and those who argue that all good science
> points to a conclusion that appears different from what the Bible appears
> to say. I would offer a third option: Perhaps the Bible isn't wrong,
> perhaps science isn't wrong. Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of what
> each says.
>
> I believe the message of the Bible is true in all it sets forth, when
> understood in the context of in the intent or formulation of a specific
> passage -- historical record, apocalyptic symbolism, poetry, law, personal
> letters of exhortation, etc. Another way to put it is this -- Religion
> tells me Who, Science tells me How. Could it be that the creation
> accounts in Genesis were written not as scientific treatises, as science
> seems to indicate, and instead symbolic passages used to illustrate the
> truth -- God created -- to non-literate peoples, both water-dependent
> fishermen and land-dependent shepherds? Maybe science is able only to
> "see through a mirror darkly," And it can only do what finite persons can
> do -- offer reasonable explanations for the phenomena of life and order
> and beauty around us. It's a sacred calling to "do science," to study
> what the Creator left us, and to always seek greater understanding. If
> it's true, it will reveal something about God. But scientists, believing
> and unbelieving, must work with evidence and experimentation as they
> present themselves; they can't start from a theological belief and bend
> observable truth to try to complement it. That weakens both theology and
> science. Likewise, believers must be content to live in a world of
> seeming paradox, and the tension between revealed spiritual Truth and
> observable material truth is nothing to be feared. The "missing link"
> (oops!) is the reality that both can be true and that, in the Providence
> of God, it will become clear. In the meantime, theologians study and
> scientists study, and their purported defenders make a mess out of
> everything. It does God no honor to deaden his word by reading into
> Scripture what Scripture doesn't intend to communicate, and it does
> science no favor to scramble like lab mice to come up with evidence tto
> try to disprove the existence of God.
>
> I am neither a scientist nor a theologian, and I'm content to recognize
> the tension between the two without panicking that the wonders of the
> universe have not been revealed to me. God is still God, even
> (especially) in my non-understanding, and His science is still His
> truth -- even in my non-understanding, and even when it seems to shake
> that which is never, in my soul. unshakeable.
>
> Keely
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list