It has been some time since, years, since I had a dialogue with Glenn concerning his proposal on the old Tweb that the flooding of the Mediterranean fits the 'required' Flood for the Biblical Flood. I had actually had forgotten which flood he was defending for a Biblical flood. Nonetheless I am prepared to go over his article defending his proposal, and give my reasoning for rejecting it.
He opens the article with the following which I agree with:
Glen describes what I call the Achilles’ heel of traditional Christianity very well and why I propose that the foundation doctrine and dogma of Christianity does not remotely fit the known science and history of humanity and our world. The efforts in Christianity to 'make things fit' range from futile attempts at out right rejection of science for a literal inerrant Bible in one form or another to the extreme allegorical interpretation where justification of the Fall, Original Sin and the Flood is lost. Glenn's attempt lies in between, but closer to the fundamentalist view. I believe in the past Glenn has claimed in the past that he still maintains the belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible in harmony with science.
I have a fundamental scientific philosophical problem with trying to make a scientific causal relationship to the claim of a Divinely directed miraculous event that in the claim has no scientific basis. Science must stand alone as the best explanation of the nature of our physical existence and the history of life and humanity.
My greatest objection is that the catastrophic inundation of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years cannot remotely fit the anthropology of human or Homo cultural and technology development required to fit the Biblical account. In the article Glenn presents no evidence to support a human or Homo population that would be adequate.
He opens the article with the following which I agree with:
Glen describes what I call the Achilles’ heel of traditional Christianity very well and why I propose that the foundation doctrine and dogma of Christianity does not remotely fit the known science and history of humanity and our world. The efforts in Christianity to 'make things fit' range from futile attempts at out right rejection of science for a literal inerrant Bible in one form or another to the extreme allegorical interpretation where justification of the Fall, Original Sin and the Flood is lost. Glenn's attempt lies in between, but closer to the fundamentalist view. I believe in the past Glenn has claimed in the past that he still maintains the belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible in harmony with science.
I have a fundamental scientific philosophical problem with trying to make a scientific causal relationship to the claim of a Divinely directed miraculous event that in the claim has no scientific basis. Science must stand alone as the best explanation of the nature of our physical existence and the history of life and humanity.
My greatest objection is that the catastrophic inundation of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years cannot remotely fit the anthropology of human or Homo cultural and technology development required to fit the Biblical account. In the article Glenn presents no evidence to support a human or Homo population that would be adequate.
Comment