This is where I came in..... Well, I came in on the second section and have not watched the first, since I feel no need to catch up on bad science. Aside from pointing out that Del conflates evolution and abiogenesis (the beginning of life) and makes arguments about abiogenesis, which is at a very iffy stage of development, stand for arguments about both. For those interested in the science aspect I would suggest logging on to http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/05/31/the-truth-project/ and for those interested in a few capsule videos about why evolution IS good science, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUu5hBp1AU8&feature=related
My concern is entirely different: that all the hooraw is in support of a failed doctrine. Yes, indeed kiddies, I am talking about inerrancy, and especially the idea within that failed doctrine that Genesis should be read as history or it has no value. Even if inerrancy is true that approach to Genesis is not required or even very fruitful, and there are other forms of literature where Genesis shines as metaphorical explanation of the human condition. But back to inerrancy, which I am not even denying is true: What I AM doing is stating that as a doctrine it does far more harm than good. Why? Because it places the emphasis, the burden for guidance on the Bible instead of on the Spirit we were promised. The point is that while we emphasize inerrancy there will always be those who, in the words of Jesus, "search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." (John 5:39-40) Once again the question arises as to why, using the Bible as guide, we have thousands of different denominations, some of which are very Bereans for searching scripture with a fine toothed comb.
Now I have mentioned that scripture describes itself as "useful" and can be seen as a great tool.... for the Spirit to use in our guidance. I would also like to mention that "the church" is described as " the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15). Now I see "Sola Scriptura" as an overreaction to the abuse of the latter idea by the Roman Church, which made the deliberate error of defining "the church" as the government they had put into place and making their edicts sole authority. The more valid description is the literal translations of the Greek "eklesia" which means those called out. The assumption of course is that it is those called out of the world to follow Christ and the church has been described as those who have gone before us as well as those currently following Christ, so that we should take into account their description of the leading of the Spirit from the New Testament to the current time. There may be a question as to what materiels from the past are Spirit led, and examination according to the fruit of the Spirit is necessary. We also have the members of our current body of Christ who can help us determine whether our leadings are of God, and Quakers have developed a set of "tools" for doing so that are well worth looking into. Last, but not least is our informed reason. We are warned against relying on reason alone and/or on the wisdom of men, but the use of reason is assumed when any rational presentation is made. Therefore, we have for guidance the Spirit and three tools for use by the Spirit. My plea is that we use the structure outlined for us IN scripture and not just scripture for guidance.
In His Love,
13 hours ago