Is truth knowable?

Anne Elliott graciously sought to call me out on some of the things I wrote on Wednesday. Not only did she write a brief comment on my post, but she wrote a full-blown post on her own blog.

I really appreciate her taking the time. It provided me a wonderful opportunity to better understand some of the things that have disturbed her (and many of her readers, I'm sure!), and it spurred me to dig deeper and seek to speak more clearly about issues I've been groping toward for too long.

Understanding the Bible: Can we just read it? Or do we need to interpret it?

I thought my comments about the distinction between the Bible itself and theology would be rather self-evident. But I guess not.

I posted a comment that echoed these thoughts on a blog post that expressed disapproval of Dr. Jay Wile's defense of Dr. Peter Enns against what Wile sees as an unfair attack by Ken Ham.

Anne Elliott wrote,

I’ve been watching with great interest some interaction online between Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis), Jay Wile ([author of] Apologia’s high school science curriculum), and Peter Enns (the author of Peace Hill Press/Well-Trained Mind’s “Bible” curriculum):

• I’ve been thrilled with Ken Ham’s stand. However, just yesterday Ken Ham has been dis-invited from several homeschooling conventions, just because he has taken the same stand I certainly would, in favor of God’s Word!
• Jay Wile, author of Apologia’s high school science curriculum, has been taking Peter Enns’ side. He has been sharply criticizing Ken Ham, and I’m actually rather shocked by this. To be honest, I don’t know that I want to use Jay Wile’s high-school science curriculum any more.

Based on some further comments by readers, I responded,

"Truth" (with a capital "T"!) v provisional theology

I am finding that the mental pocket knife of my last post ("Theology is to the Bible as [Geological] Science is to Rocks"; or, "Theology is to [Geological] Science as the Bible is to Rocks") -- that mental pocket knife has more usefulness than I might have imagined.

A division in (Christian) homeschool circles that has been slowly making its presence felt now seems to be ready for showtime.

And let me state, before I say anything else, I find this division extremely sad. I am concerned that the Christian homeschool marketplace--the marketplace of ideas--is about to be riven in the same way (again, very sadly) as the American culture as a whole seems to be being riven.

No longer will people be willing to speak with or to one another. Now we are about to begin to see shouting matches.

Science, theology, the Bible and rocks . . .

I was astonished this morning to receive notice from a friend on Facebook of this post by Dr. Jay Wile, an arch young-earth creationist and founder of Apologia Ministries, who was willing, actually, to stand up for decent treatment of someone of a radically different perspective than his own.

Reading some of the responses to his post

--"these are unbiblical views"--

--"[Such a] view . . . is clearly not Biblical"--

etc.

reminds me of something I have been trying to figure out how best to post here.

Science & Christianity

This was originally posted 13 May 2004 on my personal blog. I reposted it here on Forbidden Questions on 7 June 2011.

Someone wrote to complain about the religious content she finds in the Apologia General Science program by Dr. Jay Wile. To illustrate the kind of materials that bothered her, she happened to mention the following:

[I]n the first module, [Dr. Wile] makes a point of saying that all the great scientists of the Dark Ages were devout Christians and that the Christian worldview . . . is "a perfect fit with science, and the establishment of that worldview was essential for starting scientific progress again."

My correspondent thought Dr. Wile is overstating his case.