Ron Cowie: "Theistic Evolution" (2021) - 029

← back ← Index	File:029.oga	forward →

+/- Note:

Please comment and engage in respectful discussion below. By all means link elsewhere in the wiki.
This page, with comments, is included in the printer-friendly page R Cowie "Theistic Evolution" 2021 responses.
If you do not have an account to edit the wiki, or need help to do so, send us an email. The address is under "Help needed!" on the Main Page.

---

from Sundaes —
Sometimes we do have to rethink our interpretation of the Bible. We need to read it in its context and consider its original audience.

---

from Ken Gilmore —

• Cowie again misunderstands the EC position. No one is expected to “sort out the mass of scientific conclusions”. The overwhelming majority of Christadelphians are not in a position to be able to comment authoritatively on scientific matters. An intellectually honest and humble believer will:-

1. recognise their lack of expertise;
2. acknowledge genuine expertise; and
3. recognise that when the overwhelming majority of experts declare something to be true they are more than likely to be right.

• “If we can’t defeat the scientists then science must be right about how life began”. The truth of how life began is not contingent on whether a handful of fundamentalists are able to ”defeat the scientists”. If Christadelphians cannot “defeat the scientists” what it does means is that irrespective of how life began, it is not likely to be how a handful of scientifically illiterate fundamentalists think life began.
• If our reading of the Bible contradicts well-established facts then those readings have indeed been falsified. (Substitute flat earth or geocentric cosmos for evolution to see the force of the argument).

---

from Bruce —

1. "Prove" in the King James Version of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 doesn't mean prove as in "Prove that e=mc²." It means "try the spirits". Try them, test them, examine them: that is why bully pulpits are unsatisfactory, and why we invite respectful engagement with Scriptural arguments in this wiki. John 5:39. Please see 1 John 4:1 and ask yourself if a sound Biblical case has been made against biological science.
2. Proof by implication is not proof; proof by induction can be — but in any case it is not relevant.
3. Why not just stick to the witness of the Creation? What does it tell us? Scientists are just the footsoldiers.
4. Almost correct. If our current reading of the Bible results in obvious error and contradiction, we should listen to more literate readers. More importantly, if people can't find anything in the Bible to back up their claim that the Bible rules out evolution, they have to reinterpret the Bible.

---