Should we borrow a page from Henry James and ask (in the pragmatic spirit) what pratical difference does it make in a Christians life if he belives in literal Biblical 'creationism,' or if he belives God used an 'evolutionary' method of creation? There should be some good reason for having this debate. Forgive me if i'm so dense as to overlook the obvious. And then perhaps for some persons it would make a big difference, and for some no practical difference in their ability to realize a deep spiritual connection with the Divine, according to their respective enculturation. (Excuse the lingo - maybe it will keep me from appearing too dumb. haha :))

This is in response to David Koot's last long post on this issue, which is a page or two back now as the conversation has moved on while I've been occupied with other things.

Fair enough, David, I do recognise that I may have erred in that case. I will stop defending my actions and accept that, if bevin's words were perceived as hurtful and as attacks by Dr Kennedy, then they need to be addressed in that way. In that context I should have been more diligent in engaging with her, apologising for what she saw as attacks and trying to work for reconciliation.

One reason I didn't do so at the time was my strong impression that she did not wish to engage with the issues (either scientific or interpersonal) and discussion but to move on... that impression may have also been mistaken.

I am an educator, yes, but a science educator, and one of the academic fields in which I have published fairly extensively is the philosophy of science. I can provide cites to my work if you like. So while I am by no means a geologist, I do have relevant knowledge and expertise in this field.

Anyway, I have acknowledged that I did make errors in handling that case. I hope you will be willing to also look at your own actions and consider whether they might also have been unhelpful... but that's a matter for you.

I just want to say Bravus that I appreciate your over riding attitude even though I don't always agree with you. Thank you for being who you are.

Thanks Taylor

PS If we can find another moderator who is willing to take over this thread, I'd be delighted to recuse myself.

This question gets at the very core of why creation evangelism is so effective. God's authority comes from Him being Creator. He is deserving of worship because He is Creator. If the earth and man were not created as the Bible says, God has no authority, is not deserving of worship and the Bible is not trustworthy.

However the reverse is also true. If the Bible is believable and God did create the world as it says, then He is worthy of worship and His Word has authority.

I hope you don't expect to get off that easy.

I don't think that well be neccesary bravus. I think you do an excellant job. You accept people no matter which way they believe. You don't look down at them if they don't believe the same way you do. I think that's very commendable. Keep up the good work.

pkrause

Thanks very much

Yes, but more than this - God's authority comes from three things interacting

1) God is the originator/creator of the universe
2) God is the sustainer of the universe
3) God is actively involved, albeit in a quiet and subtle way, with us

You can have the first two without the third, and God looses His authority



This is your opinion. My opinion is that I don't need the Bible to have that level of literal scientific fact for God to have authority. You think that the Bible not being literally true is bad for God. I think having the Earth being a big lie is bad for God.

I can live with the idea that the Bible is a human construct written by Holy Men and watched over by God - suitable for its purpose as a source of divine guidance, capturing God's dealings with His people, while containing the simplifications and misunderstandings that one would expect in such ancient writings.

It does not, to me, damage God's reputation to have such a Book, and it goes along with His obvious reticience to provide overwhelming proof of His existence.

A Bible which detailed scientific facts far beyond the ability of the producing society to observe them would be the equivalent of a huge visible testable miracle - something God apparently does not do these days.

/Bevin

Excellent summary of the problem faced by people who want to argue for an old Earth with recent life.

/Bevin