Hi Norm,
You wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM [mailto:Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:30 PM
>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.
Many Christians have also 'resisted' the Big Bang.
"To accept the Big Bang, one must assume the existence of matter
and energy to be eternal." ~ Jobe Martin The Evolution of a
Creationist, (Rockwall, Texas: Biblical Discipleship Publishers,
1994), p. 10.
"Let us consider, first of all, what is postulated to have
taken place during the evolutionary process from the cosmic egg
to the human brain. According to one of the current notions on
the origin of the universe, the so-called Big Bang theory, some
billions of years ago all of the energy and matter in the
universe was crammed together in a huge cosmic egg. The size,
temperature, and density of this primeval cosmic egg varies
according to who is telling the story, but its temperature and
density were enourmous, while its radius has been estimated to be
from no more than that of an electron up to some fraction of a
light-year. The cosmic egg was so hot that no elements could
exist-- the egg consisted of subatomic particles and radiation.
"Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from or how it got
there -- it is simply assumed it was there (someone suggested
perhaps the Cosmic Chicken laid the cosmic egg). No one knows
how long it sat there, but, as the story goes, the cosmic egg
exploded (nobody knows why), and as the expanding primeval
fireball expanded, it cooled sufficiently that hydrogen gas and
helium gas (minor in amount relative to hydrogen) could form." ~
Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics, (El
Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1993), p. 154
"Hugh Ross has a 'Christian Ministry' he calls 'Reasons to
Believe.' What many do not know is that, as many 'accept the
Lord Jesus,' Ross 'accepted the Big Bang' and began evangelizing
for it when he was a teenager. Ross's pride apparently precludes
considering that he might have made a youthful mistake, as even
many atheist 'big bangers' have done, such as Britain's Sir Fred
Hoyle (a much more accomplished astronomer than Ross). Today, the
best description of Ross might be 'quasi-creationist, sounds-like
evolutionist-to-me, big banger." ~ Glenn Kailer and Tom Willis,
"Dr. Hugh Ross Magician Extraordinaire" CSA NEWS, 13:3, May/June
1996 p. 2
In a display of historical ignorance, Henry Morris claims:
"how did it all come to pass? Edward Tryon, who started many of
these metaphysical exercises back in 1973 says: 'So I conjectured
that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum
fluctuation of some pre-existing true vaccum, or state of
nothingness' Edward Tryon "New Scientist, 101, March 8, 1984, p.
15. coted by ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern
Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985),
p. 202
"While some non-Christian scientists, such as Sir Fred Hoyle of
England are openly acknowledging the serious contradictions
inherent in the Big Bang Theory, various Christian scientists
and philosophers (including the present leadership of the 2100-
member American Scientific Affiliation) are eloquently
promoting cosmic evolutionism." ~ John C. Whitcomb, The Early
Earth, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 66
"Some Christians have wondered whether the big bang might be
the creation event described in Genesis. However, it is wrong
to confuse the postulated big bang with creation. It is a
philosophical mistake because the big bang explanation was
invented as a philosophical alternative to creation. It did
not come from a study of Scripture. The big bang is a
mechanistic or naturalistic explanation. It is an
antisupernatural explanation of origins." ~ Donald E. Chittick,
The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution
Conflict,(Creation Compass, 1984), p. 62
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer
Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang
theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent
scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes
Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar,
astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey
Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi,
physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~
Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom
Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
See also: Carl Wieland,"Hubble, Hubble, 'Big Bang' in Trouble," Creation,
(18:4) Sept-Nov. 1996, p. 26
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
To: george murphy; 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"
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.
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/
"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]
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 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 15:26:49 EDT