Who best reconciles the Bible and Evolution?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:304, topic:36078”]
I’m not “throwing up my hands.” I’m here.[/quote]
Your being here in no way precludes your figurative throwing up your hands and pretending that it’s just hearsay vs. hearsay.

benkirk:
You are framing your challenge as hearsay vs. hearsay.

I don’t think either side is presenting hearsay.

Then why do you repeatedly and falsely present it that way?

I feel like a man accused of racism - it’s one of those charges that can stick even when there’s no merit to it.

I’m not accusing you of racism. I am accurately describing your presentation as a false polemic of hearsay vs. hearsay.

Are you really suggesting that “unfiltered evidence” resides only on one side of the argument.

I am accurately stating that virtually all of the unfiltered evidence resides on only one side of the argument.

It is my perception that scientists are interpreting physical data and exegetes are interpreting biblical data. Both sets of data are being mediated to us.

That is a gross misrepresentation of science. Moreover, you’re not even willing to go to the actual Biblical data in Hebrew!

[quote]Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you. If so, please give me another explanation of your thinking - only please don’t tell me again that you know better what I’m thinking than I do.
[/quote]Where have I made any claim about what you are thinking, Mike? I’m pointing out what you are doing. Maybe you are unaware of what you are doing, but you’re very clearly doing it.

[Mike_Gantt]

@benkirk

I am accurately stating that virtually all of the unfiltered evidence resides on only one side of the argument.

Then you and I have an insufficient common foundation upon which to build a productive communication.

[Mike_Gantt]

If anyone should come across this and want to keep up with this conversaion, see this question.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Mike_Gantt

Then you and I have an insufficient common foundation upon which to build a productive communication.

Mike, I’m trying to point out WHY you are avoiding a common foundation. If you’re not going to include science, simply don’t include science instead of misrepresenting it as hearsay or only retroactive interpretation, ignoring its very essence.

[Mike_Gantt]

@benkirk

Mike, I’m trying to point out WHY you are avoiding a common foundation. If you’re not going to include science, simply don’t include science instead of misrepresenting it as hearsay or only retroactive interpretation, ignoring its very essence.

I am not discounting the witness of science, but neither am I willing to privilege it. It sounds to me as if you are willing to give greater weight to an interpretation of nature than an interpretation of the Bible. I believe both should be heeded, but in both cases we are dealing with interpretations.

In baseball, it’s “tie goes to the runner.” Here, it’s tie goes to the interpretation of the Bible. This is because through the Bible speaks explicitly whereas as in nature we can only infer.

I don’t think you would agree with me on these things, and that’s why we don’t have a common foundation.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Mike_Gantt

I am not discounting the witness of science, but neither am I willing to privilege it.

Oh, but you are doing exactly that when you misrepresent it as hearsay or mere retrospective interpretation.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Mike_Gantt

It sounds to me as if you are willing to give greater weight to an interpretation of nature than an interpretation of the Bible. I believe both should be heeded, but in both cases we are dealing with interpretations.

@Mike_Gantt,

The problem here is what part of science you think is a matter of interpretation. I can understand the thought that Dark Energy might -currently - be a matter of interpretation.

But Age of the Earth evidence is not eligible for such loosey- goosey categorization!