Depends on what you mean by "adequately", "long before", and "for our purposes" :) In general, though, if you mean pre-Galileo, then the answer seems to be "no".
Come now sir, consider your statement. The Potolemiac model of the universe was admitedly, flawed. However, it did make predictions that were accurate enough for man's use. Merchant sailors were able to navigate by stellar "motion". In that it was a model in which useful predications could be made, and useful data could be obtained. The science was wrong, as was the Copernician model, but it was hardly necessary to refer to allegory in the scriptures in either case. In point of fact, a flawed hermenutic was used by the church to support a flawed "scientific" model!
Sure, we must keep working on our best explanation 'til a better one comes along, explaining more than the old one. We're now in the process of acknowledging inconsistencies -
It should be observed that many of those inconsistencies are erronious science, not a flawed biblical hermenutic. An example of this would be the phenomena that produced the Gould/Eldridge "punctuated equilibria" theory of evolution. This had nothing to do with creationism or the bible, yet the Darwinian evolutionists are just as vehemently opposed to Gould as they are to Henry Morris or Duane Gish!
In this case, between a literal reading of Biblical Creation and what is accepted based on scientific inquiry combined with physical evidence. I am attempting to explain these inconsistencies by postulating that the Bible was not meant to be taken completely literally, and I am offering evidence of this (cases where it cannot be taken litearlly and still have relevance to physical observables). While I don't expect that everyone will agree with me, I hope the logic I use, at least, is clear.
i am happy that you acknowlege that not everyone will agree with you, it should frighten you if they did, because it would demonstrate that some people are not thinking!
i get very worried when i have no opposition.
i have already addressed the question of interpretation in my previous post and will not rehash it here in order to prevent confusion.
My next (and hopefully last) post will adderss the remnant of the argument presented on your last post...Living a life does complicate things, doesn't it?
Come now sir, consider your statement. The Potolemiac model of the universe was admitedly, flawed. However, it did make predictions that were accurate enough for man's use. Merchant sailors were able to navigate by stellar "motion". In that it was a model in which useful predications could be made, and useful data could be obtained. The science was wrong, as was the Copernician model, but it was hardly necessary to refer to allegory in the scriptures in either case. In point of fact, a flawed hermenutic was used by the church to support a flawed "scientific" model!
...though they couldn't necessarily explain why it was that the first thing they saw was the _top_ of an approaching ship :) Agreed, approximations can be made, that's always been the case in science, especially physics - It's where they fail that you're in trouble. BUT, that doesn't mean we toss the whole theory. If you want to say whether a theory is an accurate predictor of physical reality, you need a specific test. Depending on that test, then, our pre-relativistic notions of motion are either accurate or inaccurate - So again, as I said, it all depends on what you mean by "adequately", "longer before", and "for our purposes".
It should be observed that many of those inconsistencies are erronious science, not a flawed biblical hermenutic.
I wouldn't necessarily call it erroneous science that no one noticed relativity in the time of Galileo or Newton... It's erroneous science if they had evidence and ignored it, due to some personal bias, religious or otherwise, but if they either lacked the evidence or simply said "we're not sure", that's just being honest, reasoning logically, and doing the best you can with limited evidence - We can expect no more. We've made a lot of progress since then in our ability to gather information about the physical world, and it's not only likely but basically ensured that we will eventually run into some evidence that contradicts our currently held scientific ideas. When that happens, we will do what we've always done - Modify our theories to explain the new observations, thereby improving them. The new theory will explain all of the things the old theory correctly explained, and will in addition include an explanation of the newest observations the old theory could not cope with.
An example of this would be the phenomena that produced the Gould/Eldridge "punctuated equilibria" theory of evolution. This had nothing to do with creationism or the bible, yet the Darwinian evolutionists are just as vehemently opposed to Gould as they are to Henry Morris or Duane Gish!
And good that this is so! We need debate in the sciences, so that, from the debate, we arrive a little bit closer to an accurate description of the universe in which we live. That a theory, or some aspect of a theory, is controversial, tells us nothing of whether it is accurate, completely flawed, or somewhere in between. That judgement can only be made based on tests of the theory.
Take the theory that the Bible is meant to be read completely literally, for instance - If we find even one example in the Bible where we cannot read it completely literally (such examples exist, I've given some), we have disproved this theory. We must then say that, at most, some parts of the Bible should be taken literally, while others should not.
i am happy that you acknowlege that not everyone will agree with you, it should frighten you if they did, because it would demonstrate that some people are not thinking!
i get very worried when i have no opposition.
I'm absolutely with you on that point. Life would be really depressing if we were all the same...
...Living a life does complicate things, doesn't it?
:) Indeed - Again, sorry for the delay here!!
Thanks for reading,
DFS