dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/23/85)
>>[DuBois] >>I'd sign it. However, (and this obviates or vitiates much of the >>point of Bill's posting) I would not sign it if a clause such as the >>following were added: "Point (2) means literal week and I will never >>consider whether it could possibly mean anything else." > [Michael Ward] > Here we have the classical "out" that is required for all who profess > to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. "It don't really > mean what it says!!!" > Week doesn't mean week, day isn't really day. Black is white and war > is peace. What I meant was that I would not sign it if that meant I must never ever consider whether I might not need to reconsider my view of Genesis. And the words I used to indicate this were certainly closer to that statement than the monstrous 1984 interpretation you have loaded onto them. Michael, I don't mind being criticised, not even for being dogmatic. But to be criticized for NOT being dogmatic? I must protest. That is scandalous. "We have piped unto you and you did not laugh, so we played a dirge for you and you did not mourn..." Matthew 11. Creationists are criticised for refusing to show non-rigidity in the way they look at Genesis. But when one of them (myself, for instance) does just that, *then* we are castigated for being wishy-washy. Ever hear of the double bind? Evolutionists require me to be open-minded enough to look at Genesis non-literally, but if I suggest that there is even a possibility that I might do that sometime, then all of a sudden I am criticized for failure to adhere to strict literalism. Reinterpretation not allowed! Though that right is claimed often enough by evolutionists... The concept of trying to look at things from several angles (multiple working hypotheses) is held up here, high and often. But 'ware ye, O creationist, ye who dare practice it. To the stake with you! 'Tis the exclusive province of others; unto you it is given that you must fit the stereotypical notions of your adversaries, and woe to you if you do not. > Come on, Paul. If Genesis is a statement of simple historical fact, > then the words mean what they mean, and not whatever you feel like > making them mean. Of course they mean what they mean. The problem for the reader is to decide what he thinks it is that they mean. And those decisions sometimes change. Don't they. Because even a creationist learns things sometimes that give him pause. --- But I don't think I wish to get sucked into this any farther. I do not think this line of discussion very pertinent. As I have stated before, I do not base my articles on contingencies with Genesis. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (03/24/85)
> Paul DuBois: > Evolutionists require me to be open-minded > enough to look at Genesis non-literally, but if I suggest that there is > even a possibility that I might do that sometime, then all of a sudden > I am criticized for failure to adhere to strict literalism. > Ken Arndt: > Therefore, to take a LITERAL (your favorite word) > interpertation of the bible does NOT mean you have to believe God made the > world in seven literal days. Can you hi-tech nerds follow that??? For the most part, I don't believe it is the high-tech nerds who are requiring 168 hour creations from anyone. Some fundamental christians groups require belief in it as part of their dogma; other christian groups define their way out of the bind between the fairly clear wording and the scientific evidence of a longer creation time in any of a number of ways, from Ken's semantic interpretation of the words in the English text (there is even more room in the surviving Hebrew texts) to the keeping of an "open mind" in the face of possible errors from the original texts, which are not available for study today. The other out, of course is that creation did take 168 hours and that God created the evidence of a longer time span as he went along. Scientists have no need to explain the words of Genesis; its not their problem. Ward (the referent in Paul's quote) would probably be overjoyed if Paul did exercise an open mind over the literalness of the Bible, but until that happens he would prefer some kind of "stand" to be taken against which he can debate; other than that, I doubt he feels a need to force anyone to interpret the Bible in any particular way. These arguments about Genesis should be in net.religion, unless someone really feels they need them to bolster their stand on creationist issues. I think most of the creationists believe their arguments do not require Genesis. Lets keep the discussion there, where faith is not a requirement. Lyle McElhaney -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/24/85)
> These arguments about Genesis should be in net.religion, unless someone > really feels they need them to bolster their stand on creationist issues. > I think most of the creationists believe their arguments do not require > Genesis. Lets keep the discussion there, where faith is not a requirement. I disagree. I've read a lot of Creationist writings during the past two years and it is clear to me that were it not for the persuasion of the literal words of Genesis, Creationism as we know it would not exist. It is not possible to divorce modern (ICR, CSRC) creationism from religion, and as long as we are going to discuss Creationism we are going to have to discuss religion. I would remind everyone that it was to get discussions such as these *out* of net.religion, net.physics, net.misc and elsewhere that this newsgroup was created. Collecting everything in one newsgroup has been a good thing for everyone involved. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that the creation/evolution debate is fundamentally a scientific debate, or that religion can be kept out of it. May I recommend a new book that discusses Creationism and religion: *The Meaning of Creation* by Conrad Hyers (John Knox Press 1984). The author is Professor of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College, and he brings a refreshing new perspective to the discussion. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/26/85)
> > But I don't think I wish to get sucked into this any farther. I do > not think this line of discussion very pertinent. As I have stated > before, I do not base my articles on contingencies with Genesis. > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- No you don't. I think that's commendable. However, this has a predictable result on your articles. They are addressed to flaws in evolutionary theory. Some are concerned with serious problems (although I don't think any of them are fatal, or even close). Some miss the mark, although not because you haven't made a reasonable effort to think things out before hand. None of them have made it clear to me why you think that creationism deserves to be considered seriously as a scientific theory. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*