This message was bounced by my old ISP iiNet.net.au, so I am sending
it via my new ISP ibm.net. Sorry if you already received it.
On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:21:54 +1000 (EST), Owen Lukins wrote:
PG>I do want to encourage everyone on the list to communicate
>something about who they are and what their particular
>interest in evolution or origins comes from. There's no
>compulsion about this if you are bashful, but I think
>people would be interested in knowing who is interested in
>this forum and why. You might also find yourself getting
>in touch with some interesting folks that way.
As I have said before. I am a Progressive (ie. Old-Earth/Young
Adam) Creationist whose position is similar to Phil Johnson:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who
might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process
instead. I am not a defender of creation-science...." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
Second Edition, 1993, p14).
OL>I am only one week new to the Internet, and just starting to see
>how useful it might be. I am a pastor in the Uniting Church in
>Australia, in a small rural town in NSW. My congregations are made
>up of basically people of a strong evangelical persuasion, but there
>are extreme views of Biblical interpretation, particularly over this
>issue of evolution. I have a conservative evangelical thrust to my
>ministry.
Another Aussie! Welcome to the Reflector.
OL>The issue of Creation/evolution has stayed with me from my
>conversion to Christ 25 years ago. At the time I was trying to
>harmonise a belief in God with what I believed science was
>teaching. I never did resolve that question before I stepped out in
>faith to put my faith in Christ.
Wise move! :-) If you had waited to resolve the Creation/evolution
question before you put my faith in Christ, you might be still
waiting.
OL>My studies in pure mathematics as a mature aged student gave me
>plenty of exposure to logic reasoning. At various times I have
>wandered between a Creationist view, to a Theistic evolutionary
>view. (I have never felt very comfortable with a young earth theory
>of Creation. I am disturbed when some Christians, in their
>evangelistic zeal, give the impression that certain views on
>creation are almost a prerequisite for being a Christian.)
Agreed. May I suggest you consider a Progressive Creationist view?
This attempts to be true to both the Bible and science. A good
exposition of same is found in Ramm's "The Christian View of Science
and Scripture" (1955):
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and
biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation.
Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give
rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process
of the unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination.
Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as
evidence for the theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological
record are gaps because vertical progress takes place only by
creation." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p191)
OL>I still sit on the fence somewhat, yet I will argue very strongly
>against an evolutionary view which leaves everything to chance
>without a Creator working through the natural processes He put in
>place. I have come to realise that it is important to recognise our
>presuppositions, and how much they filter the way we receive the
>data. My strong presupposition as a Christian is that there is a
>supernatural reality. Such a presupposition is beyond science to
>prove or disprove.
Agreed. But there is no reason why science cannot acknowledge an
exogenous Intelligent Designer:
"Surely the intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions
of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are
an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed
research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the
progress of science For example, the place of intelligent design in
science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because
on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to
distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform
sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today, we
recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in
science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)....Archaeology has pioneered the
development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and
intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go
further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for
biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within
it, we do so without the help of science." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H.,
"Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins",
Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson Tx, Second Edition,
1993, pp126-127)
OL>My difficulty is that as a scientific layman, I simply don't have
>the depth of information and training to judge which side is right
>- particularly that both sides claim to champion academics speaking
>for them who are millions of lightyears ahead of me in their grasp
>of the data. (I remember the discussion with a godly young earth
>creationist in my congregation who one day took issue with the fact
>that I mentioned objects in space that were millions of light years
>away. I forgot that in her thinking there could only be about 6000
>light years.)
That's OK. YECs get around it by saying that God created the light
en-route to Earth! :-) BTW, at the beginning you don't need a huge
"grasp of the data" (although that is needed eventually). As Phil
Johnson points out, all you need is to clarify three words:
1. "Creation" - Darwinists almost always caricature this as
young-Earth creation. That's because their position becomes difficult
if they acknowledge that a supoernatural Intelligent Designer might
have intervened at strategic points in biological history.
2. "Evolution" - you will find a shell-game is played with this word.
It can mean anything from the origin and development of the cosmos
(cosmic evolution); to the origin of life from non-living chemicals
(chemical evolution); to changes in frequency of genes in a
population, eg. moth colours in industrial areas (micro-evolution);
to large-scale design changes, eg. birds from reptiles
(macro-evolution). When pressed, Darwinists will often retreat to a
modest definition, like "change over time", or "change in gene
frequencies in a population", but when the coast is clear they will
return to grander definions of their plastic word, "evolution".
3. "Science" - science is defined as purely naturalistic, so *by
definition* an exogenous Intelligent Designer cannot be put forward
as a scientfic explanation, no matter what the evidence for creation
and against evolution. The task of science, so defined, is to find
the least implausible naturalistic explanation.
>OL>The bottom line for me is that whatever way God did it, He did
>it!! He is the Creator. We are not here by blind chance. There is
>too much beauty and order around us for me to consider that. Just
>because I don't have all the answers, or for that matter hardly any
>answers, it does not follow that such answers don't exist. By the
>grace of God, I might come to understand more about Creation. But
>may I never be sidetracked from knowing my Creator more and more
>intimately every day. I have been humbled over the years as a
>Christian to observe how my views sometimes have had to change. For
>a period of time I reacted against earlier ultra-fundamentalist
>interpretations of the Scripture, and became quite liberal,
>dismissing miracles and a belief in the existance of Satan. God has
>His ways of helping us to see the truth. For me my liberal,
>humanistic worldview was shattered when in my every day life as a
>minister I began to experience people being released from demons, and
>other sorts of healing. I am not infallible!
Praise God! But if we are going to challenge the naturalism of our
culture, we must do more than just defend our personal faith. We must
challenge the idols of 20th century scientific materialism:
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world
does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.
On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We
demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against
the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it
obedient to Christ." (2Cor 10:3-5)
OL>I would love to think that some easy solutions could be found.
>Who wouldn't like Noah's Ark to suddenly be discovered??- but I
>suspect that such discoveries will continue to allude us, dispite
>the various tantilising expeditions that have been thwarted in
>various ways.
Perhaps God doesn't want such "easy solutions"? Then it would be by
sight and not by faith (2Cor 5:7). It is surely significant that not
*one* artifact has survived (eg. the original tablets of the
Decalogue, the Ark of the Covenant; the Cross; even a description of
Jesus).
OL>Thank you for this interesting discussion opportunity. I will
>continue to watch it unfold.
Perhaps "explode" is a better word? :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------