*I probably missed the point entirely on the ceasar's bath thing because I followed Sarah and Jake's examples rather than reading about it...possible revisions to come.
In other news, there is yet another round of Intellegent Design stuff in the Collegian, including what I assume is a response to my letter by a Benjamin Stafford. I don't know him, but he smells very much like a young-earth creationist working from a focused and narrow version of Genesis. That's pretty much a pointless argument for me to enter, since anything I come up with as an example of reconciling some or all of natural selection with chrisitianity (Howard Van Till, Roman Catholic postions, etc) will likely not satisfy Mr. Stafford theologically.
If anyone wants to discuss the letter though, let me know.
In other news, there is yet another round of Intellegent Design stuff in the Collegian, including what I assume is a response to my letter by a Benjamin Stafford. I don't know him, but he smells very much like a young-earth creationist working from a focused and narrow version of Genesis. That's pretty much a pointless argument for me to enter, since anything I come up with as an example of reconciling some or all of natural selection with chrisitianity (Howard Van Till, Roman Catholic postions, etc) will likely not satisfy Mr. Stafford theologically.
If anyone wants to discuss the letter though, let me know.
posted by Bob at
6:50:00 PM
6 Comments:
Hey, I talked to Ben Stafford about the Kalthoff-narrative. He really thought about it. He was a great listener; I just don't think he's ever heard this stuff before.
By
Anonymous, at 11:38 PM
I have NO idea who posted that, but if Mr. Anon, or Ben Stafford wants, I'll be on campus this weekend, and more than willing to talk about it in person.
By
Bob, at 1:45 AM
JUST TO CLARIFY:
Ben Stafford is in NO WAY a relation to myself.
Not that I don't like him, but rather, I want to distance myself from his arguments.
Cheers,
August.
By
August., at 3:55 AM
(Parenthetically, I get asked if I'm related to him a lot... This is part of the reason why I'm prompted to state this in the previous post.)
By
August., at 3:56 AM
None of Stafford's four points, which are all theologically astute, explicitly contradict the theory of evolution (under a certain interpretation of that theory). So he didn't even make the case he wanted to make, which case itself might not have been enough to establish what he wanted to establish.
Suppose person A holds theologians B, C, D, and E in extremely high regard. Suppose B, C, D, and E all agree that for theological and hermeneutical reasons we have to interpret the "days" of genesis as literal 24 hr. days. Suppose further that A reviews the reasons and indeed finds them theologically compelling. What should A think of the information currently coming out of the biological/geological/cosmological community?
By
David Talcott, at 11:38 AM
How old does person A think the earth is? Beyond the literal 24 hour day intrepretation, the overall age would factor into my answer.
But off the top of my head, underslept, stressed and over stimulated, about the best person A could do is to assume that from the point of creation to now, the world HAS been working more or less in accordance with the information flowing from science. That is, I don't think that a litteral 24 hour day approach necessitates believing that speciation from natual selection is impossible, etc.
Cosmology would be a bit more of a problem, and in physics, Person A would, if they had to believe the earth was very young, have to assume that God "rigged" radioactive decay somehow.
By
Bob, at 11:06 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home