Knowledge3 said:
No, far from it. But once I overcame my youthful distaste for science, and became interested in this discussion, I have read a lot of popular works on science from all viewpoints. And I guess I have developed some expertise, since even some science students in this forum thought I was a scientist. But I really have difficulty with actual science texts--especially those loaded with math (another field in which I am very unqualified). So I depend primarily on those good souls who go out of their way to make science understandable to us scientific lay-folk.
The history of the composition of the bible, the social and cultural context in which it was written, and of the oral tradtions on which the written works were based, the literary forms used---lots of reasons that suggest a non-literal interpretation of many parts of the biblical text. We have to remember that at the time the bible was written, the modern concept of history did not exist. Applying post-Enlightenment categories of thought to biblical texts is a sure way to mis-interpret them.
What if science contradicts a Scripture, and a one major Scripture contradicts a proven scientific fact?
Well, we have the example of the Copernican revolution in science and its impact on the interpretation of scripture to guide us. The apparent contradiction between science and scripture in that case was much more blatant than questions about the age of the earth or the reality of evolution are. For scripture does state plainly that the earth does not move, indeed that God fixed it to foundations so that it could not be moved. Yet today we accept without question that it does move.
Such a clear contradiction does not exist with today's controversies. Scripture does not state directly that the earth is not old or that species do not evolve. Or even that every species was separately and specially created by fiat. And it does state specifically that life was not produced directly by God's command, but by the earth and waters responding to God's command that they are to bring forth living creatures.
fyi:I have quite some experience with atheistic evolution and have undergone many challenges and serious insults to my faith. So, as a result, that is why I have mild resentment and general dislike of secular and athiestic ideology of science and evolution.
Please understand that there is only one scientific theory of evolution. Science does not exist in separate versions for atheists and theists.
But when people begin to think about what scientific discoveries imply for theology and philosophy, they will come to conclusions that fit with their basic premises, be they atheistic or theistic or pantheistic or materialistic or whatever.
These various philosophical speculations about the implications of evolution (or any other major scientific theory) ought never to be confused with the fact or theory of evolution as science.
Science, as a corpus of knowledge does not philosophize---though scientists often do. And, of course, philosophers and theologians, of both the professional and armchair variety, do philosophise about science.
As for your experience, I can identify with it. I too have had the same experience at the hands of some militant atheists. (Most atheists really don't care what you believe, as long as you leave them alone.) The important thing is not to transfer your understandable dislike of secular and athiestic
ideology onto
science itself or the scientific theory of evolution. Remember that atheists can be dead wrong about the ideological implications of evolution, yet the theory of evolution can be entirely correct.
Have you read Romans 1:23? (Not intended toward TEs, but in the broad and general sense, that specific verse is strikingly transparent to what we see today with what we are discussing on this specific topic.)
I've read it. I see no relevance to this topic. No TE is advocating the worship of creatures rather than the creator and no atheist is either--since they choose not to deify anything. The idol that most bow down to is the almighty dollar. And that crosses all lines of opinion about evolution and all lines of professed belief or unbelief in God.
I have no problem being incorrect or wrong on any subject: I consider myself to know nothing in my personal philosophy..
I love to read and learn about other's belief(s) and ideas ....
