I enjoyed your Mere Lewis post. I was struck by one sentence at the end of
that post [possibly since I am an "accomodationist :-) ]
John Reynolds wrote:
>>>Times have changed, however. I saw it happen. In July of
>1995, almost forty years since the victory of naturalism
>seemed assured, its certain doom was sounded.
[...]
> The failure of the
>accomodationists to attract any cultural power or in
>maintaining, evangelical distinctives have helped. The
>compromising Campbells of the Coalition of Christian Colleges
>and Universities are no longer the cutting edge. They sound
>like wraiths from the twenties.
I agree that the problem with former accomodation techniques have had no
power to give to the religious followers. This ultimately saps their future
because a religion without passion, is dying. I hope my "accomodation" [golly
I hate that word] is able to overcome that deficiency.
John Reynolds wrote:
>>>Many evangelicals retreated in shame and capitulated. If they
>did not know Taylor, they had watched with awe the smart set
>at their local state college. The next generation stopped
>conversing with Rimmer and began to try to curry the favor of
>Huxley. A wonderful example of this is in the little book by a
>pastor named Frank Arthur Campbell. He agonizes over those
>students wishing for some sympathetic, intelligent help in
>bridging the chasm between Professor's Science and Mother's
>Religion. He found his answer in theistic evolution.<<
I told a friend recently that Christianity has had two reactions (in general)
to the problem of science and evolution in particular. First, the
conservatives have put forward a view which is far too easily falsifiable and
has indeed been falsified. This is the widespread approach that ICR took.
When our children, taught that view, go to college and learn that the
observational facts conflict with that view, having been trained to be
honest, they reject "Mother's Religion" in favor of "Professor's Science".
On the other hand, those familiar with the scientific data and not seeing
any way to unite observation with the Biblical accounts, have generally
yielded on the question of the historicity of the Scripture- which is why
they get the label "accomodationist".
Thus we have historically presented to the world a choice: 1. Believe a view
that does not fit the observational data, or 2. Agree that the early part of
the Bible has no historical validity.
This is not a very appealing choice to the young person. IMHO (or to an old
grouch like me!). It is just as hard to get passionate about what you know
is false (YEC) as it is to get passionate about what you admit to be
historically false.( the "story approach" in John Reynolds terminology- 3rd
ICC pp.445-458) A religion without passion, is dying, and passion does not
come from known falsehoods.
With Steve Clark's statement on the correctness of the genetic variability
question, I will throw this out again. If there was a flood, it had to have
occurred a very, very long time ago. It is time that Christianity begin to
look at other alternatives to the ICR approach which has absolutely no
geological support.
glenn
16075 Longvista Dr.
Dallas, Texas 75248