Dear Glenn,
My post was in answer to Christians who witness to non-Christians
scientists. I agree with you people ought to go to all sorts of sources that
answer non-scientific questions that are important to humans. I think the
evidence for what is in Scripture is something one has to find in his/her
inner being. It is not external, which requires "observational support." I
find it hard to know of a person who takes a "completely naturalistic
viewpoint" and can love and be loved in return. Naturalistic explanations
of love must be rather mechanical and dull--not to say totally incomplete
that misses the whole notion. I do not use the Bible as a scientific book
and so I do not have the conflict that Provine and others face. The problem
of the past is much too complicated a problem in forensic studies that I
leave to others. The most important questions humans ask are not
scientific. The Bible speaks volumes on such questions giving, what I
consider, satisfying answers. Ask Provine what or where does he go to answer
important, non-scientific questions. Ask him also what those questions are.
For all I know Provine is a rather dull person with no human insight! In
closing the question where I came from is not a burning question to me. I am
more concerned with where I am going!
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Cc: Charles F. Austerberry <cfauster@creighton.edu>; asa@udomo3.calvin.edu
<asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: ID:philosophy or scientific theory?
>At 08:41 AM 3/9/00 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>I find it hard to believe that people leave their faith because there are
no
>>Christian apologetics around to answer their doubts. What is wrong with
>>going to the original source, the Bible? Scientists go to the original
>>source, nature, to answer questions, don't they? As I Christian I believe
>>the Truth lies in Scripture, just as the truth about nature lies in nature
>>itself and not necessarily in the minds of researchers. I think the
reason
>>for leaving the Christian faith is manifold, but I find it hard to believe
>>that it is the one you give.
>
>Let me ask this. Why don't scientists go to the original source, the
>Bhagadvadgita--the hindu text? Why don't scientists go to the Koran? Why
>don't scientists go to the original source, the Iliad? Why don't they go to
>any of an innumerable 'sources'?
>
>Because they don't beleive that they are true. So when it comes to the
>Bible, why should they go to it if it has no observational support?
>Provine told me that after the first lecture in Lynn Throckmorton's
>graduate course in evolution he told Throckmorton that he had left out the
>most important part of evolution--the purpose. Throckmorton told him that
>there was no purpose that he could detect but that if Will wanted to try to
>find some, then he should go ahead and try. Will did try. I will quote
him:
>
> "We read the 3rd edition of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of
>Species, and I read and reread it, finding at last no way to see anything
>purposive in the evolutionary process. That was the beginning of the
>downward slide on the slippery slope. The problem is that if one gives up
>the argument from design, then all one is left with is tortuous academic
>arguments for the existence of God, or personal experiences with God, or
>faith-like acceptance of the fantastic stories of the Bible. I just could
>not see any way to escape the implications of really believing in evolution
>and so rather quickly slid right to the bottom of the slippery slope,
>denying the existence of free will as the last rough spot on the way down."
> "So the struggle is over for me. I find it logically compelling and
>emotionally satisfying to take a completely naturalistic viewpoint as a
>provisional hypothesis" (pesonal email communication Jan 13, 1995)
>
>I would note, that he didn't find the stories of the Bible as strong enough
>evidence to avoid his downward slide. That is why historicity is
>important. If we had something that actually made those things history, we
>wouldn't have had to deal at Cornell at least, with the person Will
>became--a strong advocate for atheism. He was also reported to have said
>(This was sent to me by a friend):
>
>
>>"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
>>--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell
>University.
>
>I agree with what Provine says because Christians help make it that way.
We
>teach that if the evidence fits evolution then the Bible is false. Well
when
>students learn that much of what they were taught isn't true, then they
>draw the conclusion their parents taught them,---the Bible is false in
>their eyes. So they do become atheists. On the other hand, the other side
>of the coin, the theistic evolutionists generally teach that the Bible
>stories are not real history. So why should someone like Will, or me,
>believe them if they admittedly aren't real?
>
>And since Will contracted cancer, I asked him bluntly if it had changed any
>of his perspective on life and ultimate reality. He told me that not
>having to blame a nasty god who gave him the brain cancer nor having to
>live afterward was a real advantage. (personal e-mail communication (March
>20, 1998)).
>
>So, I would say to you Moorad, how do you get someone to go to the source
>who doesn't think it is the source and thinks it is highly flawed? The
>problem with your suggestion is that you limit your vision to a christian
>world. This isn't a christian world. THere are lots of other possible
>options. And to George Murphy, I would not, that here too is another
>example of why this issue IS related to Christ. We are losing some awfully
>good people because we fail to come to grips with the reality of evolution
>and the need of many to have a real account of the creation.
>
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 13:32:26 EST