Hey George...
Was that first line a Freudian slip? 8^)
As I have stated before, I believe that meaningful discussions concerning
alternate Origin stories should be presented to all our children, and if it
can not be done in our public schools (or any other public forum), then,
perhaps by default, it must occur in our other "meeting houses," our houses
of worship.
I am surprised that everyone here seems to have forgotten (or never learned)
that throughout the period between the observation of the "red shift" in the
cosmos, and the confirmation of Gamow's predictions by the Bell Labs radio
engineers, it was the Humanists who had resisted, and, to some extent,
continue to resist, the Big Bang Theory the strongest, due to the
theological implications of a finite universe.
True seekers of the Truth do not fear honest science.
Norm
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:03 PM
To: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM
Cc: Shuan Rose; glenn.morton@btinternet.com; Walter Hicks; Asa
Subject: Re: How to teach about evolution in the church. Was" Utley v
Dawkins"
My proposal amounts to having "the evolutionists" take over the
churches" in the same sense that the geocentrists "took over the churches" a
few centuries ago.
I reiterate what I said below: Evolution is not to be the central
message that the church proclaims, to be raised to the level of an
unchallengeable meta-principle, or anything of the sort. But when creation
and related topics are dealt with in sermons, parish education, &c, there
are appropriate ways in which our scientific knowledge of the world should
be brought in.
If churches continue to picture evolution as an adversary of
Christianity then those who are opposed to Christianity will be only too
happy to take the proferred weapon and clobber the church with it.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM wrote:
Methinks that the evolutionists are getting a little greedy.
First they have taken over the public schools;now they want to take over the
churches.
Doesn't the Separation Clause swing both ways?
Norm
-----Original Message-----
From: Shuan Rose [ mailto:shuanr@boo.net <mailto:shuanr@boo.net> ]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 2:43 PM
To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com; Walter Hicks; gmurphy@raex.com
Cc: Asa
Subject: How to teach about evolution in the church. Was" Utley v Dawkins"
Glenn Morton wrote:
I am not sure that is why people become YECs. I knew the arguments for an
old earth before I became a YEC. I became a YEC because my religious
beliefs required it. The reasoning is that if God's word says this
happened, and if we trust God, then we should believe what is written. Same
reasoning goes to many other parts of the Bible such as, God's word says
that Jesus arose, If I trust God, then I should believe that. The
parallelism of this type of argument is why YEC arguments have force in
Christianity. It is not merely a matter of knowledge. I know lots of YECs
who know the arguments for an ancient earth--indeed, Allen knows them
also--e.g. light from distant stars.
And I might add that this misunderstanding is why so often our arguments
fail to reach their target.
Glenn, you are on target. The main reason people become YECs is not because
they believe that creation science is superior, but because they believe
that if Genesis is not literally true, then the entire Bible is a lie.
Often they hear this from the their pastor, or some other chuch leader.
Which leads to George's point:
The best way to "deny others the tools" is for churches to incorporate
evolution into thei theology, teaching, proclamation, & worship. By this of
course I do not mean that evolution should be the heart of the church's
message,
that it should be considered an ultimate truth, or anything like that. But
if
people heard evolution being discussed in positive ways in the church, and
if the
doctrine of creation were presented with evolution in view, then children
would
learn to see it as part of a Christian understanding of the world. Then when
they got to high school and some atheist biology teacher said (as was the
experience of one of my parishoners) "Forget what you've learned in Sunday
School
- now we're going to learn how it really happened", their reaction would be,
"What are you talking about? Evolution is how we learned it in Sunday
School."
In contrast, the way too many churches have dealt with this issue amounts
to painting a target on their chests and then handing atheists a gun.
I agree with George that the best way to counter what Walter Hicks described
as "flagrant atheism, liberalism $ humanism taught in many public schools in
my state" is to do a better job of teaching about evolution in church.
Church leadersare often the problem here , however. Quite a few are YECs or
YEC sympathizers.Even if they might be inclined to teach positively about
evolution, the issue is so controversial that leaders do not want to go into
it. I know some YECs who are so committed on the issue that they are quite
capable of instigating a church split over the issue.Not too many church
leaders want to be accused of introducing " liberal, godless, apostate,
evolutionistic" doctrine into the church.Those of us who are from a
conservative evangelical background know what I am talking about.
Shuan Rose
2632 N Charles Street,Baltimore MD 21218
[410]467-2655
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 05 2002 - 16:30:38 EST