Hi Shuan,
You wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Shuan Rose
>Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 5:47 PM
>To: PHSEELY@aol.com
>
>
Of a YEC friend,
>She pressed a copy of the AiG book, Refuting Evolution, into my hand,
>insisted that I read it, and absolutely refused to listen to
>anything that I said!
You answered the question below before you asked it.
>Why have the YECs and the IDs been
>so successful in getting the word out while deeper thinkers (like
>you folks) are "hidden under a bushel?"
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:36 PM
>To: shuanr@boo.net
>Subject: Re: How to discuss evolution with friends. WAs RE: YEC and loss
>of faith:
>
>
>In a message dated 02/12/2002 8:14:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>shuanr@boo.net writes:
>
><< 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,
> >>
>
>You can take a peaceful approach by simply showing from Bernard Ramm and
>others that committed Christians have various views of Science and
>Scripture.
>
>You can also explain that understanding evolution requires proper
>background.
>have they studied paleontology? biology? genetics? etc. If not, you cannot
>convince them of evolution any more than you could teach calculus to a
>person
>who only knows how to add and subtract, and you can tell them that.
>
>If you need to defend yourself, You will get ideas from David Livingstone's
>book, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders.
>
>Note also, Derek Kidner, 1967. Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries,
>IV Press. In discussing "let the earth [or sea] bring forth" in Gen. 1:11,
>20, 24, he states "this language seems well suited to the hypothesis of
>creation by evolution (as the present writer thinks)" but does not rule out
>any other alternative.
>
> Charles Hodge, the conservative Presbyterian theologian, who taught at Old
>Princeton Seminary in the 19th century, and who is considered
>ultra-orthodox,
>said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but
>he
>did allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the
>question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a
>process of evolution." (p95) (cited in Noll and Livingstone ed - Baker
>press).
>
>Also, A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, who wrote THE book on Inerrancy which
>Evangelicals have build upon, both accepted evolution. B. B. Warfield
>called
>himself a "Darwinian of the purest water," (cited in Carl F.H. Henry, God,
>Revelation and Authority, Vol. VI, p. 193.)
>
>Finally, Billy Graham said, "I don't think that there's any conflict at all
>between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have
>misinterpreted
>the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things
>that they weren't meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by
>thinking that the Bible is a scientific book.
>The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of redemption, and
>of
>course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the
>universe. I believe he created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary
>process and at a certain point he took this person or this being and made
>him
>a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man....
>I personally believe that it's just as easy to accept the fact
>that God took
>some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the
>fact that
>God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some
>protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process.
>Either way
>is by faith and whichever God did it makes no difference as to what man is
>and man's relationship to God."
>
>David Frost, Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man. (Colorado
>Springs, Chariot Victor, 1997) pp. 72-74
>
>Upon being shown this quote from Billy Graham, the theologian J. I. Packer,
>who wrote a book in favor of biblical inerrancy, said, "Most excellent! My
>sentiments exactly. Well said!" this was a personal communication to Denis
>Lamoureux Feb 22, 00; but Packer has also said in print that he sees no
>confluct between evolution and the Word of God. See J.I. Packer, God Has
>Spoken, p. 170, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1988, and J.I. Packer, The
>Evangelical Anglican Identity
>Problem, p. 5. Oxford: Latimer House, 1978.
>
>So, you can show that a believer in evolution is standing with some of the
>greatest orthodox theologians and saints of all time. Based on that fact,
>you then point out from I Cor and John that taking sides against
>other godly
>Christians divides the body of Christ and is a sin. It is a sin for them to
>speak against evolution per se; it is only naturalism that is the
>enemy; and
>neither you nor Derek Kidner nor the Hodges nor BB. Warfield nor Billy
>Graham
>nor J.I Packer is a naturalist. If you want to really be aggressive, go for
>a
>conviction from the Holy Spirit: Say, It is a sin. Don't argue
>any further.
>Just proclaim and let God convict. Just keep saying, It is a sin.
>
>Step 2 is to show the "I take the Bible in a straightforward way" folks,
>that
>they are just kidding themselves. That they reject the Bible whenever it
>says
>something that messes up the "god" to which they have made their ultimate
>commitment, that is, "The Absolute Inerrancy of the Bible in matters of
>science." But, that is lesson 2. I can only give you a preview here:
>
>Here is an email I sent to a "true believer" who said a Christian must
>interpret scientific data in subordination to Scripture because if one
>subordinates Scripture to modern science, that is naturalism which is
>hostile
>to Christianity.
>
><<Eccl 1:5 says, "the sun rises and the sun sets" By taking the
>verse out of
>its historical context, one can rationalize it to mean that, it is just
>speaking phenomenologically; but, it continues, "and hastening to
>its place,
>it rises there again." It clearly says the sun is moving around the earth.
>Nowhere does the Bible say or infer that the earth is moving
>rather than the
>sun. Indeed, as Luther pointed out, the world (the earth upon which man
>dwells) is fixed and cannot be moved (Psa 93:1; 96:10).
>
>If "sound Biblical thinking" means that scientifically acquired data is
>interpreted within the Biblical paradigm, then you must join Luther in
>rejecting Copernicanism. If you do reject Copernicanism, then for you "the
>bible is the basis for interpretation of the
> data. It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to reinterpret
> the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological Naturalism." But, if you
>accept Copernicanism, according to your espoused principle, you are
>subscribing to naturalism.
>
>So, is the sun moving around the earth as the Bible says, or not? Bible or
>naturalism? Which do you choose?>>
>
>He never answered me.
>
>The problem they have is that ( I base this on 30 years of carefully
>searching Scripture in the light of history): Whenever the Bible touches
>upon
>science qua science, it is the science of the times. God, as a Father,
>accommodated his revelation to the science of the times, which is not far
>from what Calvin taught. So, their whole program of getting their science
>from the Bible is bogus.
>
>Stand tall. As you get more light, you will find that you have the long end
>of the stick.
>
>Blessings,
>
>Paul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:39:03 EST