Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!mhb5b!princeto!levy From: levy@princeto.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: "Ark Confusion - (nf)" Message-ID: <175@princeto.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-Jun-83 23:35:04 EDT Article-I.D.: princeto.175 Posted: Sun Jun 5 23:35:04 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jun-83 03:29:52 EDT Lines: 90 I was a bit taken aback by Yoakum's article. It seems to me it resorts to ridicule a bit unfairly, and where there is no need to. Unfairly, because to the best of my knowledge there are no schools where the Bible is taken as a textbook on *world history*. Yes, the biblical accounts are deemed by many people (including me, but I will qualify this statement later) to be historical, but this does not make it a textbook on history. In fact, I think pretty much all Christians would agree that the Bible primarily addresses spiritual questions, and has no claim to being a treatise on history (or geography, or physical science, or whatever). It is also unfair to put a child in the role of the questioner. Try explaining elementary astronomical facts to a child: "Why?" "Why what, Jimmy?" "Why is the moon always smiling?" "It is not really smiling, Jimmy. These are just mountains and seas on the surface of the moon." "How come thy look so small? The hill behind our classroom is bigger than the whole moon, so there should be moons on the mountain and not mountains on the moon..." "Well, that's because the moon is so far away. In fact the moon is very, very big and lies many miles above the earth." "If it's above the earth how come it doesn't fall on us?" "Because... Well, it's falling all right, but it never hits the ground." "Can I try jumping from the window to see if I hit the ground?" "Don't be silly, of course you'll hit the ground." "So why doesn't the moon? You said it's bigger and heavier than me..." "Well, there is a reason. It's just too hard for you to understand." "Can I swim on the moon?" "Swim?!" "You said the smiling face is really mountains and seas..." "Oh, they aren't really seas, they are just called so. They're dry." "I've never seen a dry sea!..." And so on. You take my meaning. This of course brings me to the second point: You *could* explain gravitation to a (reasonably intelligent) adult (if you're satisfied with a rough approximation of *how* it works, and give no thought to the question of *why* it works so -- this question being obviously unanswerable, like some of Jimmy's whys -- but you cannot explain the biblical account of the flood in physical terms (in spite of the creationists' attempt to do so). So indeed it is a hard question. So what? Does this invalidate the claim that things happened as narrated in the Bible? Once you admit the existence of a God with certain characteristics (e.g. omnipotence), why not believe also that he flooded the earth? Surely if God can create the universe he can disturb the cosmic balance ever so slightly and flood this speckle of dust which we call our world, thereby drowning the even more insignificant speckles animated with life which abound on its surface. Equally easy is to say that he saved two exemplars of each living species (N.B. nothing is said about Noah having to gather them from far and wide; God could also take care of that). So this more or less explains why I think it is unnecessary to use irony or ridicule in pointing out the difficulties with the story of the flood. They are obvious. If you do not believe in God in the first place (and you have a right not to, known as free choice), then you won't believe in the flood. If you do believe in something like the Christian God, there is nothing impossible about it. Now for a brief clarification of my own position. The Bible says that the rainbow is the sign of an agreement God made with Noah that he would not send another flood. Now we know better, don't we? We know the rainbow is caused by light refraction, different coefficients for different wavelengths, what have you. Does that invalidate the biblical claim? Again, no. It can still be a sign of a divine covenant. In the same way I believe the whole biblical story of the creation, the flood, etc. to be essentially true, though nothing prevents us from trying to find out the underlying physical processes that are "summarized" in those stories. In particular, I maintain that with due attention to the use of *limited* metaphor in the Bible (e.g. not taking "days" in Gen 1 literally; cf. the verse, which I quote from memory, that says that a day is to God like a thousand years, and conversely. The lesson is that God's time reckoning is not the same as ours, which is not surprising), there is *no conflict* between the biblical account of creation and the theory of evolution as can be substantiated by facts; of course, the idea that all evolution is the product of chance and hence there can be no mind behind it is *not* provable in any reasonable sense of the word, and hence not scientifi in spite of Carl Sagan's proud boasts to the contrary. So the lesson I draw from Gen 1 is that God is omnipotent; he created the world according to his will; he did it in an orderly manner, and with a plan. I can't see how you can possibly refute this without unscientifical assumptions. As for bona fide efforts to detail the history of this creation, I'm all for them. Long live Darwin!... I'd appreciate any form of response to this letter. Silvio Levy puccvax!eecs!levy