Summa Creationism - Planning

[Willtor]

Not really a summa so much as a FAQ, though.

Here's what we've got so far:

Semi-Organized:

Article 1: Whether it is appropriate for authors of Scripture to use figurative language:
Objection 1: Default interpretation is literal
Objection 2: Figurative interpretation undermines Scriptural truth

Article 2: Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: God knew we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.

Almost as Semi-Organized:

- God would not use evolution, as it is a continuing and imperfect method of creation, whereas the Bible presents creation as being finished and perfect before the Fall.

- Evolution is a human invention of naturalistic origins for life so that God is not seen as being responsible for the creation of life.

 

[Willtor]

Article 1: Whether it is appropriate for authors of Scripture to use figurative language:
Objection 1: It would seem that the default interpretation of Scripture is literal, and non-literal interpretations should only be applied when the literal meaning leads to nonsensical understanding.
Objection 2: Further, the tendency to interpret the Scriptures figuratively undermines the authority of Scripture.
Objection 3: Further, figurative interpretations of Scripture are inconsistent with the doctrine that Scripture is infallible.

Article 2: Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: It would seem that God should have known that we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: Further, God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.
Objection 3: Further, human modes of knowledge should be subservient to Scriptural interpretation because knowledge revealed by God is infinitely more certain than tentative knowledge gained by investigation.

Article 3: Whether the theory of biological evolution is inconsistent with the Genesis creation account:
Objection 1: It would seem that God would not use evolution, as it is a continuing method of creation, whereas Genesis presents creation as being finished.
Objection 2: Further, evolution uses imperfect elements and wasteful processes whereas Genesis presents God's creation as being "Good" before the fall.
Objection 3: Further, evolution, as a natural process, is contrary to the nature and work of God, Who is above nature and whose work cannot be measured by natural means.
Objection 4: Further, evolution works on populations rather than individuals thereby precluding a first man, whereas Scripture discusses a first man, Adam.

---

Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

[shernren]

I say we start with these and see where we end up. My hunch is that quite a few responses will end up overlapping each other, even in different articles. In particular Objection 1 in Article 1 and Objection 3 in Article 2 would probably have very similar answers.

Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere. I'll take a stab at Article 2 some time in the coming two weeks before I start fasting.

(Have you been reading a lot of old-school theology recently? It seems to have seeped into the style of this planning thing.)

 

[Willtor]

I say we start with these and see where we end up. My hunch is that quite a few responses will end up overlapping each other, even in different articles. In particular Objection 1 in Article 1 and Objection 3 in Article 2 would probably have very similar answers.

That seems plausible. But I think this can be mitigated, somewhat, by the context of the Article in which it appears. The issue is to relate the response to the discussion that you write.

Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere. I'll take a stab at Article 2 some time in the coming two weeks before I start fasting.

That would be great, Shernren! Thanks, muchly.

(Have you been reading a lot of old-school theology recently? It seems to have seeped into the style of this planning thing.)

Yes indeed.

I'm quite inspired by scholastic style. It seems refreshingly honest in its approach. In light of that, I'd like to structure this like this:

Article (num): Article Topic
Objection 1: question 1
Objection 2: question 2
...
Objection n: question n

On the contrary, (opposite stance on the topic, usually citing Scripture or a Church Father).

We answer that... (1 or 2 paragraphs of discussion, usually on the side of the "on the contrary," or some synthesis of the stances)

Reply to Objection 1: reply 1
Reply to Objection 2: reply 2
...
Reply to Objection n: reply n

 

[gluadys]

Interestingly, laptoppop has picked up on this thread and is suggesting a similar creationist FAQ.

It will be good to see both develop.

 

[gluadys]

I would suggest another Article along the lines of:

Article: Whether it is appropriate to describe God's work scientifically in terms of natural process:

Objection 1: To describe an event as a product of natural process eliminates God as a cause.

Objection 2: Further, to describe an event as a product of natural process denies God's power over nature.

Objection 3: Further, to describe an event as a product of natural process eliminates its capacity to reveal God's glory.

 

[Willtor]

Interestingly, laptoppop has picked up on this thread and is suggesting a similar creationist FAQ.

It will be good to see both develop.

I think so. I'm hoping both will be constructive in their responses.

I would suggest another Article along the lines of:

Article: Whether it is appropriate to describe God's work scientifically in terms of natural process:

Objection 1: To describe an event as a product of natural process eliminates God as a cause.

Objection 2: Further, to describe an event as a product of natural process denies God's power over nature.

Objection 3: Further, to describe an event as a product of natural process eliminates its capacity to reveal God's glory.

Very nice. This should probably go between articles 2 and 3.

 

[Assyrian]

On semi organised: Whether the summa should be written in the scholastic phrasing of Aquinas
Objection 1: Visitors referred to summa will be put off by unfamiliar format.
Objection 2: Further, a familiar creationist argument is best expressed in its most recognisable form.
Objection 3: Further, shall they not say we are nuts?

 

[gluadys]

On semi organised: Whether the summa should be written in the scholastic phrasing of Aquinas
Objection 1: Visitors referred to summa will be put off by unfamiliar format.
Objection 2: Further, a familiar creationist argument is best expressed in its most recognisable form.
Objection 3: Further, shall they not say we are nuts?

I agree with objections 1 & 2. I would like to see this as a temporary working format that helps us to think through the ideas carefully. But I don't think it is a good one to present to new inquirers.

As to #3, I don't think so. And vis-a-vis #2, I think it would be good to vet the creationist arguments in the creationist forum to be sure we have a fair wording they would recognize.

 

[Assyrian]

And vis-a-vis #2, I think it would be good to vet the creationist arguments in the creationist forum to be sure we have a fair wording they would recognize.

Yes and no. If there are Pratts out there with an often repeated format that keeps coming up, it might be best to use it as is, a veteran YEC over on their subforum may have a modified version of the argument after repeated experience of the problems the full Pratt runs into. But is the modified version representative of the argument in the wild? Certainly if they think our version is a strawman, we should not use it without evidencethat version really is out there skipping down the road with Dorothy.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, but as I say, it's pretty important to make as strong a presentation of their arguments as possible no matter how they're typically presented.

As to the format of the response, I don't think it's really so important either way. I suggest(ed) the present form because 1. it's really well organized and 2. it allows us to respond to various subtleties on a particular point without writing two or three different questions that are almost the same. The related questions and responses can all rely on the same analysis.

Clearly, I like the form. But if you all don't, I'm not married to it.

 

[Willtor]

Regardless of whether this is a good format, here is the current deal:

---

Article 1: Whether it is appropriate for authors of Scripture to use figurative language and in what measure:
Objection 1: It would seem that the default interpretation of Scripture is literal, and non-literal interpretations should only be applied when the literal meaning leads to nonsensical understanding.
Objection 2: Further, the tendency to interpret the Scriptures figuratively undermines the authority of Scripture.
Objection 3: Further, figurative interpretations of Scripture are inconsistent with the doctrine that Scripture is infallible.
Objection 4: Further, even if it is allowed that some passages can be interpreted figuratively, where the plain reading is literal, a literal interpretation should be preferred.

Article 2: Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: It would seem that God should have known that we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: Further, God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.
Objection 3: Further, human modes of knowledge should be subservient to Scriptural interpretation because knowledge revealed by God is infinitely more certain than tentative knowledge gained by investigation.

Article 3: Whether it is appropriate to describe God's work scientifically in terms of natural process:
Objection 1: It would seem that to describe an event as a product of natural process eliminates God as a cause.
Objection 2: Further, to describe an event as a product of natural process denies God's power over nature.
Objection 3: Further, to describe an event as a product of natural process eliminates its capacity to reveal God's glory.

Article 4: Whether the theory of biological evolution is inconsistent with the Genesis creation account:
Objection 1: It would seem that God would not use evolution, as it is a continuing method of creation, whereas Genesis presents creation as being finished.
Objection 2: Further, evolution uses imperfect elements and wasteful processes whereas Genesis presents God's creation as being "Good" before the fall.
Objection 3: Further, evolution, as a natural process, is contrary to the nature and work of God, Who is above nature and whose work cannot be measured by natural means.
Objection 4: Further, evolution works on populations rather than individuals thereby precluding a first man, whereas Scripture discusses a first man, Adam.

---

Gluadys' article is the new article #3, and I added an objection to article #1 as recommended by Laptoppop. I think the discussion for that article would be broad enough to cover it.

 

[shernren]

... is probably too verbose for its own good. But at least I've started!

Article 2: Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: It would seem that God should have known that we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: Further, God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.
Objection 3: Further, human modes of knowledge should be subservient to Scriptural interpretation because knowledge revealed by God is infinitely more certain than tentative knowledge gained by investigation.

Prologue
========

Chris Tomlin is a leading singer-songwriter in today's contemporary Christian music industry. Recently (last year) he released a song entitled Indescribable, which uses Biblical images (most notably those from Job 38) to make his point:

Who has told every lightning bolt where it should go
Or seen heavenly storehouses laden with snow
Who imagined the sun and gives source to its light
Yet conceals it to bring us the coolness of night
None can fathom
​

The song is beautiful, but isn't it scientifically suspect? What would Chris Tomlin say to someone who protested to these lyrics, on the grounds that: the path of lightning is governed by electrostatics, people see "heavenly storehouses laden with snow" - clouds - all the time, that fusion powers the Sun, and that the night is caused by a rotatinig Earth? Clearly Chris would say that his critic had completely missed the point of the song. The critic has not proved the song wrong; he has just proven that it has a different point altogether.

Keep this in mind as we explore the Bible and see what (if anything) it has to say about science. We are not proving the Bible wrong; we are just proving that it has a different point altogether.



Objection 1
===========

"The creation issue is about whether the Bible or modern ‘science’ is the authority on what happened in Earth’s past. But the Bible is the Eyewitness account of the Maker who was there, knows everything and never errs." - Jonathan Sarfati, 'But Genesis is not a science textbook' (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp)

We should first consider what scientific knowledge actually is, which will help in the rest of the article. We can divide it into two broad categories: scientific observations, which are physical data obtained from objective observations and measurements of various parts of creation; and scientific theories, which are physical hypotheses and conceptual frameworks used to organize scientific observations. With these ideas in mind, let us rephrase the objection slightly: is it not appropriate to assume that God may have included scientific observations or scientific theories in the Bible?

He well could have! There is no theoretical objection to God making the Bible a scientific text or to Him not doing so; the question is not "could He?" but "did He?" This will be answered below.

Answer 1: God was at perfect liberty to incorporate or to withhold scientific knowledge from the Scriptures. We must determine which of those He actually did by looking carefully at both science and Scripture; neither source alone will give us a full answer.



Objection 2
===========

"The Bible is much more than just a history book, however; it was written by inspiration of God. The Lord certainly understands how this universe works; after all, He made it. So His word, the Bible, gives us the foundation for understanding the universe." Jason Lisle, "What Does the Bible Say About Astronomy" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/astronomy.pdf)

To go from "God understands the universe" (which no Christian denies) to "The Bible helps us understand the universe" is a large leap. But is it warranted? After all, the Bible will only help us understand what it was intended to communicate.

Note that when spiritual revelation is claimed of the Bible, the express purpose of this spiritual revelation is given:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV)

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2 Peter 1:16-21 NIV)
​

Is it to satisfy man's curiosity about created things? No, it is to elucidate who God is and what impact His identity has on man - as a sole creator God, then as a relational covenant God, then as an incarnational Savior, then an immanent Spirit. (This is not a modalist view; it is an extremely brief recap of the progressive revelation of the Trinity.) As such, if God did not intend to communicate scientific knowledge through the Bible, then God would not have required it to be scientifically accurate.

"However, wouldn't any lie in the Bible invalidate its truth?" Yet it would have been impossible for God, having began to commit Himself to a scientific revelation in Scripture (which would be unnecessary; see below), to finish it to perfect accuracy. Would He have revealed Newtonian mechanics? Then He would be wrong, for it breaks down near the speed of light. Would He have revealed Einstein's theories of relativity? Then He would be wrong, for it breaks down on an extremely small scale where space and time themselves are quantized. Would He have revealed some quantum gravity theory that resolves this? We know for a fact that He hasn't.

Moreover, Newtonian physics isn't "wrong" when we use it in every day life to cross streets without getting hit or lob balls or do physics homework; it is a sufficient approximation. In the same way, a geocentric universe is really a sufficient approximation for a man who wants to know why the Sun is only in the sky half of the day; a young universe created in six days is really a sufficient approximation for a nation who needs a Creator God for a sense of national identity. Would it then be a lie for God to tell the Jews such things? Only if He intended them to replace these statements for actual scientific investigation; we shall see shortly that He did not.

Answer 2: God could only have revealed approximations to scientific truth instead of scientific truth in the Scriptures; therefore, to hold Scripture to scientific inerrancy will cause Scripture to fail that test even if scientific creationism is absolutely true. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the intended purpose of Scripture was actually to communicate scientific knowledge, as discussed in Answer 1.



Objection 3
===========

"... if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know." Ken Ham, "Creation: 'where's the proof?'" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

I will make a slight detour to address presuppositionalism. Supposedly, evolution and creationism are two equally valid frameworks (or "presuppositions") from which one can interpret the data, and they can only be distinguished in their validity by the Bible - as an extension, they aren't really scientific and transcend scientific discussion. Thus in the article quoted above, Ham goes on to say that if the Bible is not included in the debate, there is no way for a creationist to win. But this is simply not how science works. If creationism were really equally valid with evolution, then there would be no fact which creationism explains and evolution cannot (which creationists claim), nor would there be any fact which evolution explains and creationism cannot (which evolutionists show). Suffice to say that creationists certainly argue as if presuppositionalism is false, no matter how many philosophical treatises they write to propose that it is true.

Now, giving the creationists the largest leeway of argument possible: suppose that God did indeed aspire for complete scientific accuracy in the Bible, and that He did indeed write the Bible with the intent to communicate scientific knowledge (namely, that Objections 1 and 2 are valid). Even if He did, would we have been able to retrieve that knowledge?

For a practical example, consider how creationists approach the Scriptures concerning geocentrism. Sarfati recognizes that:

The misunderstanding [of geocentrism being considered doctrinal] arose because people failed to realize that biblical passages must be understood in terms of what the author was trying to convey. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter7.asp ; emphasis in original)
​

This allows him to not consider passages like Eccles. 1:5 and Psalm 93:1 in constructing his cosmogony, instead deciding that those passages were not written for the purpose of teaching cosmology. However he earlier on (mis)uses Isaiah 40:22 to argue that the sphericity of the Earth is compatible with the Bible:

... think about Neil Armstrong in space—to him, the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from.
​

But I am sure that Isaiah, when he wrote these words, did not intend to convey to his readers what the Earth looked like from space! Or does the principle of "author's intent" only appear when dealing with Scriptures that contradict an already-established scientific worldview, but not before?

The surface problem is that it is simply impossible to translate accurately and consistently from Scriptural expressions to scientific truths. Suppose God had really intended Eccles. 1 and Psalm 93 to teach geocentrism. Would Sarfati not then have been wrong? Indeed, how does Sarfati know that he is handling Scriptures rightly? Certainly, Eccles. 1 and Psalm 93 are not astronomy textbooks - neither is Isaiah 40. It is obvious that even for creationists, a Scriptural passage cannot be considered to be revealing science if that revelation would be contradictory with what we already know of science.

This brings us to the root problem with this objection. Even if God were to reveal scientific knowledge through the Bible, He would never have expected us to accept it by Biblical authority alone. For suppose He communicated a scientific statement through the Bible. There would then be three logical possibilities:

1. Physical reality is accurately described by this scientific statement. But if that were the case, then our investigation of physical reality would be able to confirm this statement independent of its place in the Bible, so that Biblical authority would not be required for it.
2. Physical reality is not accurately described by this scientific statement. But in what sense can a scientific statement be said to be true if it does not describe physical reality? Moreover, as above, our investigation of physical reality would be able to reject this statement independent of its place in the Bible, so that it would not stand with Biblical authority but drag Biblical authority down with it.
3. Physical reality looks the same whether or not this statement is true. But in what sense can this statement then be said to be scientific? After all, a statement is scientific precisely if reality would look different if it were wrong. "Atoms" are scientific because we know that our universe doesn't look like a universe without atoms; "heaven" is not scientific because we don't know what our universe would look like if there was no heaven.

The Bible, then, is clearly not a trustworthy medium for scientific messages. To creationists themselves, Biblical authority or hermeneutics don't determine what is scientific in Scripture - that is determined by what they already knew to be scientific before they even opened their Bibles. And if God Himself built the universe so that scientific statements can be tested independent of their presence in Scripture - then why would He clutter His Book with unnecessary words? The only conclusion that is left is that God Himself intended for us to find out scientific truths simply by experimenting on reality; and if reality shows us something different from our interpretation of the Bible, then our interpretation of the Bible must be wrong, since scientific statements are not intrinsically necessary to its message.

The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go; and if the heavens can testify to God, can they not also testify for themselves, so much smaller than the infinite God they praise?

Answer 3: It is neither efficient nor necessary for Scripture to be made to carry science - as such, it is not proper for an interpretation of Scripture to overrule well-done science.

note: this doesn't yet address the issue of historicity, although the issue of scientific communication is closely related. That's for Article #4.

 

[Willtor]

That's good stuff, Shernren! Thanks muchly, muchly! I tried to shorten it a bit (though, I do hate to lose any of the material) and fit it into the (questionable?) framework. I also did a little work to complete thoughts that were left incomplete by my cuts. Post any modifications and/or criticisms.

---

Article 2: Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: It would seem that God should have known that we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: Further, God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.
Objection 3: Further, human modes of knowledge should be subservient to Scriptural interpretation because knowledge revealed by God is infinitely more certain than tentative knowledge gained by investigation.

On the contrary, it is written (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NIV): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work," and (Aquinas, "Summa Theologica," Q1A1): "Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God."

We answer that, Scripture was written to elucidate who God is and what impact His identity has on man - as a sole creator God, then as a relational covenant God, then as an incarnational Savior, then an immanent Spirit. As such, if God did not intend to communicate scientific knowledge through the Bible, then God would not have required it to be scientifically accurate. It will be asked, "does any lie in the Bible invalidate its truth?" Yet it would have been impossible for God, having begun to commit Himself to a scientific revelation in Scripture (which would be unnecessary), to finish it to perfect accuracy. Would He have revealed Newtonian mechanics? Then He would be wrong, for it breaks down near the speed of light. Would He have revealed Einstein's theories of relativity? Then He would be wrong, for it breaks down on an extremely small scale where space and time themselves are quantized. Would He have revealed some quantum gravity theory that resolves this? We know for a fact that He hasn't. Besides, teaching any of these things would be a deviation from the stated purpose of Scripture. Where Scripture appears to relate knowledge gained corresponding to modern ideas (e.g. science) it is not that understanding that is the valued intention of the author because such knowledge, in itself, is of little spiritual profit. Newtonian physics is a sufficient approximation in every day life to cross streets without getting hit or lob balls or do physics homework. In the same way, a geocentric universe is really a sufficient approximation for a man who wants to know why the Sun is only in the sky half of the day; a young universe created in six days is really a sufficient approximation for a nation who needs a Creator God for a sense of national identity. Would it then be a lie for God to tell the Jews such things? Only if He intended them to replace these statements for actual investigation.

Reply to Objection 1: Whether He could have incorporated scientific data or theories (in whatever depth) is beyond question. Whether He did either of these things is quite another question. God, in His perfect knowledge, was at liberty to incorporate or to withhold scientific knowledge from the Scriptures. We must determine which of those He actually did by looking carefully at both science and Scripture; neither source alone will give us a full answer.

Reply to Objection 2: God could only have revealed approximations to scientific truth instead of scientific truth in the Scriptures; therefore, to hold Scripture to scientific inerrancy will cause Scripture to fail that test even if scientific creationism is absolutely true.

Reply to Objection 3: It is neither efficient nor necessary for Scripture to be made to carry modern modes of knowledge - as such, it is not proper for an interpretation of Scripture to overrule well-supported knowledge gained from observation and reason. (this doesn't yet address the issue of historicity, although this issue is closely related; see Article 4) Even though modes of knowledge apart from revelation can only ever be tentative, if the purpose of the revelation lies in one area (e.g. spiritual edification and growth) and the knowledge being gleaned lies in another (e.g. science) it may yet be that this other knowledge is even more tentative than the knowledge gained by investigation.

 

[shernren]

You wanted it in a single statement? Well I focused most of my discussion on the last answer. Let me try to bring out that emphasis again:

We answer that, Scripture was written to elucidate who God is and what impact His identity has on man - as a sole creator God, then as a relational covenant God, then as an incarnational Savior, then an immanent Spirit. As such, God did not necessarily intend to communicate scientific knowledge through the Bible.

It will be asked: "doesn't any inaccuracy in the Bible, even a scientific one, invalidate its truth, regardless of its purpose?" Yet it would have been impossible for God, having begun to commit Himself to a scientific revelation in Scripture (which would be unnecessary), to finish it to perfect accuracy. We know this because every scientific theory we have is only an approximation of deeper physical realities (Newtonian mechanics being an approximation of special relativity, which is in turn an approximation of general relativity, which in turn must be an approximation of some currently incomplete theory of quantum gravity) and is thus inaccurate in some sense. Since God has not revealed any more accurate scientific theory in the Bible, the Bible therefore cannot be scientifically complete even if creationism is right. Furthermore, if it is a sufficient approximation for a man to believe that the sun moves across the sky if he wishes to know why there is day and night, it is then certainly a sufficient approximation for a man of three score and ten years to believe that the universe was created thousands of years ago, to convey the vastness of the creation and its Creator.

Would it then be a lie for God to tell the Jews such things? Only if He intended them to replace these statements for actual investigation. However, God Himself has created nature such that a scientific statement would never need to derive authority from Scripture. The only criterion of a scientific statement's truth is how well it describes our observations of physical reality, and it has pleased God to let these observations be uniformly repeatable regardless of any researcher's personal beliefs about religion or Scripture. As such, no true scientific statement would be any more true, nor would any false scientific statement be any less false, simply because it was in Scripture: for the proper object of science is neither the Creator nor His Scriptures but His creation.

Hope that's better. =)

 

[Citanul]

Objection 1: Visitors referred to summa will be put off by unfamiliar format.

I agree with this objection. I had never heard of a summa before this idea was put forward.

The other problem that I have is that there's just way too much to read. I know you want to cover the points adequately, but if you're going to be directing people to it, it needs to be easy to read otherwise they're going to lose interest.

And one issue that comes in regarding ease of reading is that of long paragraphs. It's not as easy to read large blocks of text on a screen as it is on a printed page, and I know that I often skip them unless I have an incentive to read them.

One tip that I came across is to try and keep paragraphs limited to two or three sentences. I try and adhere to these, and I've noticed that it makes a big difference.

 

[shernren]

I still don't know what "summa" means. I thought it was some form of colloquialization of "some" ...

 

[Willtor]

It's the Latin word for sum. Summa Theologica is the sum of theology. The format is designed for organization and categorization of topics. In our case, it isn't designed to end dialogue but to be a springboard into meaningful dialogue.

That's a good bit of discussion, Shernren. That's quite succinct. I'll put that in.

 

[Assyrian]

We answer that, Scripture was written to elucidate who God is and what impact His identity has on man - as a sole creator God, then as a relational covenant God, then as an incarnational Savior, then an immanent Spirit. As such, God did not necessarily intend to communicate scientific knowledge through the Bible.

Sorry Shernren but there has got to be better and simpler ways to write this. You are a really good communicator, but I think the format throws us into philosophy and theology mode. We have to be able to express it in ways that can be simply understood everyone from the 14 year old who has just been wowed by a load of pratts on the DrDino site, to mature believers who have walked with the Lord for years.

 

[Citanul]

We have to be able to express it in ways that can be simply understood everyone from the 14 year old who has just been wowed by a load of pratts on the DrDino site, to mature believers who have walked with the Lord for years.

I agree - this is what I was trying to get at when I said it should be easy to read.