From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Expertise, was Re: Progressive Creationism Part 2
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:02:44 GMT

Bruce Salem (salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

JGA:	There's a lot of stuff to go through here.  I'll try to be
brief.  If I'm too brief, we can go back and try to clarify.

SALEM:	You see, in view of my confusion about your use of language within
: the two spheres, science and religion, I read your posting as at least a
: partial endorcement of the views therin. There is one disclaimer at the
	
JGA:	I've been careful to disclaim at the end of each article. 
The reason that I've posted this is that Chris Colby has requested a "Theory
of Creation."  This particular theory, "Progressive Creationism", or "ProCre"
for future use, is a deliberate attempt to reconcile scientific knowledge
with the language of Genesis.  What should be apparent at the end of
reading it is that ProCre has considerable religious use, but is not a
true theory of science -- except for the fact that it incorporates much of
what science has shown to be accurate. 

SALEM: front of the first article and no discussion about where this dividing
: line between what you take to be science and what you take to be something
: else. Clearely the articles have something to say about science and religion,
	
JGA:	The dividing line is where Boice is wrong about science.  He
discounts both atheistic and theistic evolution.  I.e. God created animals
and men.  After you read the last of the series, you'll be surprised at
what Boice still validates as scientific truth, based on his statement.
	I believe in evolution, with an added touch:  I also believe 
the process can be influenced supernaturally, and yet the process and 
results still appear wholly natural.
	#1 example is the K-T boundary event. 
It is *most likely* a meteorite/asteroid impact (as opposed to 
massive volcanic eruptions).  Now, it is obvious that the impact 
can be a wholly natural event.  However, on faith I can believe that the 
trajectory of the asteroid was influenced by God, and the subsequent 
extinctions allowed a genetic re-mix that led (evolutionarily) to the dominance
of mammals.  I cannot either prove or disprove what I believe.
	JGA Axiom 1:  Faith is not based on scientific evidence.
It is based strictly on belief.  When I say "Axiom 1" in the future,
I am summing up for brevity.

JGA: >	The conference on origins I attended at Washington Cathedral basically
: >said this:  The scientific or religious investigation of origins is valid.
: >But they should not overlap -- they are different spheres and pursued
: >for different purposes.
: 
SALEM: 	I would like to hear you elaborate on this. What can either sphere
: say in its own sphere and not say in the other?
	
JGA:	Astronomers and cosmologists can formulate observationally-based
theories for the origin of the universe.  These do not have to contain
a religious component (and should not).  
On the other hand, historians and theologians can
investigate societies possessing creation mythological texts.  These texts
likely do not contain data on which scientific theories can be based, but
provide social and religious information.  (I say "likely" because it's
possible to think of a religion who worshiped the apparition of a heavenly
body occurring every 76 years.  If the apparitions were historical, it
has an overlap with astronomy, but not much.)  Example of a question: How does
Norse mythology differ from Greek mythology?

 
SALEM: 	Now, having seen Jim's bio, I can say that someone who writes
: >: papers on the chemistry of minerals in aqueous systems, and I presume
: >: something about diagenetic processes, is not necessarily an expert on
: >: subjects such as stratigraphy, geochronology, etc.
[inadvertent deletion]  "I've known of scientists who did..."
: useful work in some area but heald views, such as Creationist, which
: are in direct conflict with another major area of science.

JGA:	Such as Davis Young, who accepts all geological evidence for an
old Earth and discounts the flood, yet rejects theistic evolution (as
quoted in Boice.)
 
SALEM: 	Of course C14 or H3 have short enough half-lives to fit into a
: Young Earther's time scale, so even a Young Earth Creationist could use
: these. I suppose that Th isotopes with half-lives on the order of 10**6
: years might present some problems, though. Mind you, I know that you
: are not a Young Earther, but then that gets back to the problem of when
: you part company with other Christians who are. You may have a good
: argument, but will they hear you?
	
JGA:	Just giving examples (i.e. you have to understand radioactive decay
to understand geochronology).
	Relative to other Christians -- those who have ears to hear will
hear.  I have been able to show staunch inerrant literalist Fundamentalists
that science was valid and that there are errors in the Bible, and it is NOT 
EASY.  I don't debate for the sake of debating.  I explain why I believe
what I believe.
	Interestingly, the singles group I attend, which is studying Genesis,
which provided Boice's book, is having an associated 3-hour seminar on
the scientific issues, with a physicist (Naval Research Lab) and a professor
of ancient semitic languages from Catholic University.  Should be interesting.
I plan to be there.
	--- UNFORTUNATELY, my chance to be a goad in Duane Gish's side is 
next weekend.  A local church is having a workshop on Genesis, with Gish,
Morris, Ham (I think) and Tim LaHaye.  But I'm out of town next weekend!
I would love to quote Boice to Gish, saying "According to this esteemed
inerrantist, the body of knowledge supporting an old earth is to vast to
be refuted.  How do you answer this esteemed Biblical scholar?"
	DARN!  DARN!  DARN!  DARN!  DARN!
	(I will provide info on this meeting for any Washington area
t.o. readers who wish to go.  I'm also posting a separate announcement 
on t.o.  Zuber?  Where are you when I need you?)

SALEM: 	OK, but a geologist might be perfectly happy with lithostratigraphic
: units and even ignore them as time-rock units. You treated the above units
: as lithologies and wern't too concerned with their absolute ages, the
: index fossils in them or what period or stage they are assigned in the
: geologic column. Even a Creationist geologist could do that.
	
JGA:	Again, just local examples.
	I totally and completely accept the geologic column, and all the
geochronologic and fossil-chronologic methods used to establish it, even
though I don't understand them all.

SALEM:  your carelessness in the use of language let you in for
: the criticism. 
	
JGA:	Granted.  I regret the flippancy of the remark, but not the
learned discourse which has resulted from it.  No smiley.  I mean it.

SALEM:  What really bothers me is the lack of care already evident
: >: about language, the kind found in Scripture and the kind found in
: >: scientific work, as though they must be reconciled. They cannot be
	
JGA:	Boice, Young, and others are trying to determine if they can be
reconciled, for religious purposes and not for scientific purposes.  They
have to construct strawmen (such as the mantling of the earth in cloud,
concealing the sun and moon from the earth's surface) to do this.  JGA
Axiom 1 again.

JGA:  {ProCre is} a conscious attempt to calm the troubled minds
: >of believers.  It's Davis Young's search for the calm center.
: 
SALEM: 	But to calm the believers, when in this group, you need to set your
: context very carefully. Even if you can reconcile Scripture with science
: you need to be clear about why you need to, and how selective you are

JGA:  Good question!  Do I need to?  No.  Do I want to?  As much as is
possible.  And why?  Because I am a better witness for my personal faith
when somebody asks me a question about it, if I have a very clear, thought-out
position to present.  Boice's book has aided my Christian faith.  It hasn't
improved my science an iota.

SALEM:  One of the points worth making is that
: you do not read evey verse of Scripture in the same context. Even literalists
: make judgments about HOW to read each verse, and they don't read each one
: the same way. This results in wide latitude in how to read each piece.
: 	If you need to calm the faithful, you need to soothe the non-believers
: that you don't intend to bugger the facts to fit your beliefs. Many people

JGA:	I give you permission to rake me over the flaming coals any time I
might try to do this.  My comments on the seeming unlikelihood of mass 
extinction events were sounded and hounded.  O.K.  THEY'RE NOT UNLIKELY! 
See what I mean?

SALEM: 	Now, I think that sacred texts of all sorts have their value, but
: it is least to do with agreement with science. It is a common mistake in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JGA:  Verily, you speak the truth, Bruce.  If I get Gish on the phone will
you tell him for me?

SALEM: this day and age for theists to think that they must present their
Scriptures
: as if they had the same kind of knowledge as a legal brief, or a scientific
: journal, and are to be read the same way. I think that this is a basic
: misuse and distortion of religion and sacred works. It may even be argued
: that people who hold the view that their beliefs must be made to conform
: in some way with the findings of science have some weaknesses of faith.

JGA:  Is this exactly accurate?  Isn't the argument this:  Those individuals
who have to be TOLD that science conforms to, or somehow validates, their
beliefs possess weaknesses of faith.  "Faith is the evidence of things
not seen."  If you have to see it, Q.E.D. you have a weak faith.  If (as 
a scientist) you have to see it, that's good science!

JGA: >	Right.  But just to throw another light on it...
: >	If you completely ignore whether or not the prophets were inspired
: >by God(s), the fact that these texts were preserved gives insight into the
: >way that the historical peoples related to and interpreted the world 
: >around them.  Only a few privileged individuals in any society are given
: >the lofty title of "commentator":  George Will, Jonathan Swift, C.S. Lewis,
: >Thomas Paine (? on name, author of "Common Sense"), Jean-Paul Sartre,
: >etc.  Perhaps they do have more in knowledge than the rest of us have, 
: >whether or not that knowledge is God-inspired.
: 
SALEM: 	 Just to play divil's advocate, I'm sure that "Mein Kaumph" by
: Hitler, may well be preserved on the same basis. Sacred texts the world
: over point to paths to enlightment, spiritual richness, correct living,
: and to Man's struggle to find meaning for himself. They have universal
: value. The questions addressed by faith are eternal and are asked by all
: of Mankind. 

JGA:  Just have to stop and say BRAVO.  And a good question is:  why does 
Mankind keep asking?

SALEM:  The problem is that words are not the ideas, or the ideals.
: Words betray us. They change meaning over time and through translation.
: Even if we can know of words in one language translate into another, we
: do not have the original conotations, especially of idioms. The OT
: prophets often heard of God in dreams, but if you lived in a time when
: everybody beleived that dreams were the means to talk to spirits or gods,
: then it follows that God talked to people in dreams, and some of these
: people could express themselves better or were more respected than others
: and were therefore conferred the status of Prophet. Now, I go through this
: not to denigrate prophets, but to show how an idea which could have been
: current at one time is lost and we read a text from that time with a
: different connotation. 

JGA:  And getting back to a much earlier question, determining what the
idea meant *at that time* is a valid pursuit in a religious study of origins.

JGA:  Whew.  Glad I had time to respond.  Thanks, Bruce.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov