But my question is this: It is really an honest debate? Or is just an
opportunity to convince the students that science must be accepted
without skepticism and anything that disagrees with it must
automatically be wrong?
I've met at least one YEC who is highly educated in science and believes
that the dominant attitude on this email list is sincere but
inconsistent. He feels that what most here would call "god of the gaps"
is simply the failure to admit that the "hard science" that is preached
is, in fact, quite soft. Moreover the attitude that any YEC has no
arguments in his favor come across as arrogance.
I believe as most do on this site with respect to what is valid in
science. However, IMHO anti-YEC is NOT the slam dunk that most people
here make it out to be and that it would be good to get more feedback
from the opposition.
Walt
Ted Davis wrote:
>
> Let me affirm strongly what Chris Sharp writes about the likelihood of
> students raised as YECs, losing their faith at university. We at Messiah
> (who are not YECs, at least not in the science dept) are also concerned
> about this (many of our students come to us as YECs). Specifically, we are
> concerned that our graduates be made to think very hard about science/faith
> issues while they are still here, so that when they go elsewhere for further
> study they at least have some basis for furthe reflection. I will quote a
> statement that guides our teaching:
>
> "Within the Natural Sciences Department there is no single interpretation
> that all faculty would endorse; nor should this be surprising. Indeed, the
> college expects faculty to form their own positions thoughtfully and to
> communicate these to our students in appropriate ways. In this way we can
> offer our students multiple models for relating science and faith, which
> parallels what we do in other academic disciplines. We believe it is
> especially important to do this with science, as it reflects a genuine,
> legitimate diversity of opinion within the Christian community and better
> equips students to evaluate information that might not fit neatly into one
> particular model."
>
> I'll fill in the blanks: we want our students to see us disagree amongst
> ourselves, so that they do *not* get the dangerous impression that there is
> *the correct* Christian view of origins, apart from our unanimous
> affirmation that the universe was brought into being, and is upheld in
> being, by the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. If they think that
> there's just one option, it's most likely to be YEC, and that house will
> topple when the sand under it shifts--if not at Messiah, then later on. No
> doubt, YECs will accuse us of being wolves in sheeps clothing, who steal the
> faith of Christian youth, whereas in fact we *know* we are doing just the
> opposite--that we are helping students properly to ground their faith in
> thoughtful reflection on the word and the works of God. We are definitely
> "concordists" in the loose sense of that term.
>
> Ted Davis
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 10:31:56 EST