James Mahaffy wrote:
>In Darwin's Black Box Behe says, "further I find the idea of common
>descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing,
>and have no particular reason to doubt it. p. 5.
What geneticist, biologist, or in this case microbiologist, who should know
by virtue of his profession the overwhelming amount of data confirming
mutual shared common ancestry, would couch a statement of common descent
with weasel words such as "idea," "fairly convincing," and "no particular
reason"? If this statement came from Billy Graham we would understand it
as coming from an evangelical with a theological background, but lacking
expertise in science. But such a statement from a microbiologist is an
inexcusable equivocation, in my estimation.
>Phil Johnson makes it rather clear in his introduction to Darwin on Trial
>that his own position is NOT YEC. He says, "I am not a defender of
>Creation Science and in fact am not concerned in this book with addressing
>any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence.'
>(p. 14)
He is not "a defender of Creation Science." He is not a defender of
Christianity either. He professes the faith, but champions a god who
whatever his other characteristics may be, does not use, allow, condone or
permit evolution. Johnson and atheist Will Provine agree that if evolution
is true, there is no god!
What I learned about God was taught by Jesus Christ, apostles and
prophets. Nowhere did I learn that God can't create however He wants
through whatever process He may choose. If He commands, "Let the earth
bring forth," the earth better deliver.
>Yes as Davis indicated, Johnson as a leader of the ID movement want YEC
>to feel welcome in the ID tent and in my conversation with ID folks, they
>purposefully avoid arguing about YEC OEC stands.
It is not a question of big tent, small tent, it is a question of
honesty. Behe and Johnson are being chided for holding back what they know
to be true, or at least what can be substantiated, in the interest of
placating their constituents. On the one hand, we have scientists with no
particular stance on faith taking the high ground against these Christian
super stars on the other hand, who are deliberately suppressing what they
know to be true. The message should be obvious - in matters of science,
Christians can't be trusted.
When the blind man was healed by our Lord, all he said was exactly what
happened. When he was offered the chance to speculate a bit, he demurred,
and simply restated what he knew to be true. That is all that is expected
of any Christian. Profess what you know to be true, and don't speculate
where you are ignorant. PJ does the opposite. Something he knows to be
true he suppresses, and he professes in an area (science) where he has no
expertise - and does it in the name of Christianity!
>In a few sentences before this Johnson says, "I am a philosophical theist
>and a Christian.
Better he disavowed Christianity all together and declared himself strictly
a theist. At least that way we would know that the god he confesses should
not be confused with the God of the Bible.
A few years ago I found a web page put up by a Canadian preacher who argued
that the King James Version of the Bible was inerrant, protected from any
error or mistake by the Holy Spirit. Most evangelicals who believe the
Bible is inerrant, qualify that with the phrase "in the autographs,"
meaning they recognize we are stuck with a few scribal errors, and errors
can be found in translating Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English.
I thought this preacher would appreciate knowing he was incorrect. After
all, why would he continue to embarrass himself if he knew he was
wrong? So I picked out three obvious errors, one in transmission and two
in translation, and emailed them to him. To my amazement, the preacher
continued just like nothing had happened! Only now he makes his claim with
full knowledge that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Fibbing for Christ is not an option. (And I do not accuse either Behe or
Johnson of that.) But those who call themselves "Christian" are obliged to
tell it straight in my opinion. If they can't, either opt out of the
apology business, or opt out of the religion.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 11 2002 - 00:17:16 EDT