Hullo List,
In my opinion, the constant proprogation of YEC views as THE only true
interpretation of Genesis can lead to a loss of faith, as it almost did in
my life when I confronted the evidence for evolution. Evolution may not be
the perfect scientific explanation for the diversity and elaboration of
life, but it is better than OEC and incomparably better than YEC, which has
been completely falsified scientifically.
The next question for me is how I explain this to my YEC friends. I go to a
conservative evangelical church, and most folk there appear to be YEC. In
fact, the church puts out a tract attacking evolution as ungodly. When I
mentioned that I beleived in evolution, I was challenged on this. One of my
friends even wants the church to bring Answers in Genesis(GROAN) to town for
an evolution/creation debate!
My position is not helped by Dawkins & Provine, with their proof of
evolution = atheism formulas.
Its enough to make you wish for the simple life of an atheist!
Seriously though, I would like some guidance on how to deal with evolution
when the topic comes up with my YEC friends.
regards,
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of george murphy
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 7:48 AM
To: Walter Hicks
Cc: Ted Davis; asa@calvin.edu; CMSharp01@aol.com
Subject: Re: YEC and loss of faith
Walter Hicks wrote:
> george murphy wrote:
...................................
> > & finally, my point stands that there is no good argument for
YEC beyond that
> > based on its dubious assumptions about the character of biblical
narratives.
>
> I once heard a viewpoint that says that God created the Universe with
> man in mind. In fact: that by the Gospel of John this is conveyed very
> clearly. If then the universe is created for man, is it so obvious that
> God would have it do 20 billion years of preparation for the coming of
> historical mankind. If that "history" is what is needed for the backdrop
> to mankind, then so be it. Do you think that God could not just as
> easily start the clock ticking some 10,000 years ago? Yeah, I know that
> you probably hate the "history built in" argument. Do I perhaps see an
> a-priori bias for "naturalism" that refuses to even consider anything
> else?
>
> I don't subscribe to YEC, but I think the arguments generally presented
> here don't hold overwhelming weight.
I don't think a full-blown evolutionary view of the world is a slam
dunk from the
standpoint of either science or theology. There are a number of things that
current
evolutionary theory hasn't explained well (in particular, the origin of
life), and there is
some latitude in biblical interpretation. I can understand how informed &
sensible people
can hold varieties of PC or OEC, though I think they're wrong in significant
ways. But YEC
is a quite different matter, & that's what we're talking about. It is
scientifically
worthless & theologically unnecessary.
God didn't create the universe simply with humanity in mind but
humanity indwelt by
God - i.e., for the Incarnation. See Eph.1:10 and Col.1:15-20. This
requires that there
be an intelligent species for the Logos to enperson. & if God acts to bring
about such a
species in the world through natural processes - so that it's possible for
that species to
understand the world on its own terms - then that species will arrive via
evolution. That
takes a long time - & all the anthropic "coincidences" then become of
theological
interest. But the whole idea is not simply an anthropic but a
_the_anthropic principle.
I'll be glad to send to anyone who's interested my article "The Incarnation
as a
Theanthropic Principle" which was published in _Word & World_ a few years
ago.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 11:12:09 EST