literary and theological framework for understanding Scripture and theworld.
and theologians have suggested the NOMA positionis the best articulation of the relationship between science and theology. It isthis position that has perhaps popularised the dichotomy between “who andwhy” and “how and when.” This dichotomy is valid only in that “who andwhy” are the theological questions driving us to interpret Scripture, but theseparation is not so easy.
Old Earth Creation (OEC) approaches to the world that do not dismiss thefindings of modern science often represent a fusion of the NOMA andaccommodationist positions.Both concordists and accommodationists claim support from significantfigures from church history, including Augustine, John Calvin, and Martin
L. Irons, and M. G. Kline, ‘The Framework View,’
The Genesis Debate,
S.J. Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria,"
106 (March 1997): 16-22, accessed 7 June, 2011, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html, C. Hyers, ‘TheNarrative Form of Genesis One, Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No,’
Journal of the AmericanScientific Affiliation
36.4 (1984) 208-15, 215 suggests science and theology operate at rightangles along different planes of thought. A. Einstein, ‘Science and Religion,’
Science,Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium
, (Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religionin Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc, New York, 1941), See also, A. Einstein,‘Religion and Science,’
The World as I See It,
(Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, OpenRoad Integrated Media Digital Edition), Locations 514-580,
“Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there existbetween the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that whichdetermines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means willcontribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who arethoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding... The situation may beexpressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and the Bible,
(Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1986), 215-217 suggests that to make the interpretation of Genesis a matter of “how” not “who” or “why” pushes us away from the theme of thepassage, suggesting that as God’s people the “how” is not important. This is not entirelyrepresentative of a Biblical doctrine of creation because it is important that God created by hisword, in the beginning. Two elements of the Genesis account.