From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 11:23:07 EDT
Darryl wrote:
>When asked I present YEC views as best and as honestly as I can; but I
>also agrue every point of error of omission or comission that I find. And
>I argue on a purely scientific basis. The YECs chose to play the game on
>the field of science so that is where I play. IF they had stayed on the
>field of religious belief I would have had no arugment with them.
They don't play their game of deception "on the field of science," they
play in churches at the invitation of pastors. In my article for the
Washington Post in 1986 I said this: "Creation science should be banned
from the classroom not because it's religion or because it's bad science,
but because it's bad religion."
The article went on to point out how they misunderstand the very Book they
profess. (You will have an opportunity to read a better article this
December in PSCF titled: "Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal
Mistake.") Their perverted science would be bad enough, but it is based
upon totally flawed interpretation to boot. The notion that there was no
death in the animal world before Adam commits Original Sin is a distortion
of Scripture.
Citing Romans 5:12, Morris explains that death "entered into the world"
only when sin came by man. And, he continues:
... it is as obvious as anything could be that the fossil record now
found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust could only have
been formed sometime after man sinned.
Is that what the Bible says? All the world's predator animals had to wait
for sin before they could put their claws and fangs into tasty red
meat? Can you envision black clouds of hungry buzzards egging Eve
on? Does that sound plausible?
Let us get some perspective. What did Paul say in Romans? "Wherefore, as
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ..." (Rom.
5:12a). Does this mean Adam's sin caused death in the animal world
too? Did sin inflict both man and animals in the eyes of Paul?
There are at least two reasons that death was not dealt to the animal world
through Adam's fall. First, the fossil record is replete with over half a
billion years worth of animal death. That predates Adam by a wide
margin. The second reason is that animals do not belong in the same
"world" as man, attested to by the Bible writers themselves.
Notice that Morris did not use the entire verse. He stopped in
mid-sentence, in fact. This is what follows the semi-colon. Romans 5:12b:
"and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." So the Bible
tells us, "as obvious as anything could be," who or what is affected by
Adam's sin - men, not animals.
Additional clarification can be found in the following verse. Romans 5:13:
"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there
is no law." Who was under the law, men or animals? Did animals tithe,
fast, celebrate feasts, honor the Sabbath, keep the commandments, or offer
up unblemished sacrifices?
In Romans 4:13: "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world,
was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith." Were animals "through the righteousness of faith"
to be joint heirs of the world along with the descendants of Abraham?
Had Adam's sin carried a death sentence for the animal world as well, those
concerned critters could take heart with I Corinthians 15:22: "For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." So, if
young-earth proponents are right, keep stocking those pet cemeteries,
there's a new day coming. The trumpet will blow, and millions of year's
worth of animal life will burst forth!
In short, YEC is utter nonsense at best, and a demonic deception at worse.
>But I will neither ask nor give any quarter on the field of science.
Nor will I where Bible integrity is concerned.
>Data is data and logic is logic. If we use anything else to come to
>conclusions then by what critieria do we determine physical reality? I am
>not the best geologist nor even the best informed geologist in this area
>or any other and there is little I can do about; but I can control the
>way I play the game. Aside from how I play the game I can only hope, and
>leave the rest to God, that the evidence I present is deemed adequate to
>thwart YEC scientific arguments by those to whom it is presented and that
>they way I present it does not cause them to think ill of me or to find
>fault with me as a Christian, though I have a lot more to learn about
>being a Christian than I do about geology.
>>Many people have been running around the past few years askings "What
>>would Jesus do?"
>Jesus cast out the money changers. That's my example. Do we have the
>same courage?
>
>We have to have courage, but courage without honor is savagry. If we are
>percieved as savages in our zeal to teach good science what happens to our
>effort to bring salvation to those who walk away from us?
I think the members of ASA could serve a noble service as individuals by
showing their disdain openly for those who deliberately misrepresent
science and profane our Bible. And I think that as an organization ASA
could serve no higher purpose then challenging them at every turn, in the
churches, in school textbook committee meetings, and in our official
publications.
What say you all?
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 11:27:09 EDT