|
|
Re: 12 Questions... please answer.
Elliot Richmond (elliot@mail.utexas.edu)
9 Aug 1995 19:32:27 GMT
In article <1995Aug6.160650.27033@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>,
matcmjk@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Jean-Luc Picard) wrote:
> Basically, creationism is rubbish. On one side, you have centuries of research
> in many different fields - Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy,
> Paleontology etc. and all their branches, which have shown how fast things
> decay, how things change etc., and on the other you have the Bible - a
> collection of texts written over a large period of time by a number of men in
> one small area of the Earth and translated. Pick one.
> M.
It isn't a choice between the geologic, etc. record and the Bible.
Creationism arises from a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the
Bible (or any collection of religious writings) as well as the purpose of
science.
There are many things I would not use the Bible for; I would certainly not
confuse it with a geology (four corners of the earth), astronomy (and the
sun stood still) or biology (swallowed by a great fish) textbook. It is
not even a theology textbook. As a Christion I believe the Bible is
trying to teach me certain things, but I would never suppose that those
things included geology, astronomy, or any other scientific area. And to
believe in a God who would display, say, a sequence of fossils and other
evidence in the geologic record but require me to ignore that evidence and
believe in some odd extrapolation of geneological records to determine the
age of Earth is to believe in a God who is unimaginably perverse and
untrustworthy.
--
Elliot Richmond | Opinions expressed are mine alone
(lurking in the halls of) | No one else would have them
Science Education Center |
The University of Texas at Austin |
elliot@mail.utexas.edu |
|