OK, I'll take the bait.
I do find it rather interesting that I agree with Glenn on the
non-evolving nature of our humanness.We have agreed in several other
areas... imagine that, a creationist agreeing with a TE. I am concerned,
though, about the sinister characterization of creationists based upon
their lack of response. Out of fairness, that characterization has no
place in the secular world, and certainly not among those of faith.
Beyond the rhetoric lies some fundamental differences that need to be
explored, but not under that cloud of accusation.
The AP reported yesterday that the find under discussion was found
partly buried in sediments from an ancient sea. I am interested to see
the methodology utilized to date the art work. Why? Because it cannot
really tell us when it was carved. We might be able to speculate, may be
able to estimate based upon some dating assumptions, get a tentative
range of dates, but if anyone knows of a method that can absolutely tell
us for a fact when this object was carved I'd be happy to hear it.
Why might there be silence on the issue? From my perspective, there
remains so many questions. What we have to date to respond to is what
really lacks substance. So, moving beyond this it is appropriate to
respond to Glenn...
GR>Art work created by anatomically ancient hominids demands some
GR>type of response from the Christian community and yet silence is our
response.
Now, wait a minute (sorry... borrowed a line there ;-) ), this is
presented as fact. There is absolutely no evidence that definitively
shows that "anatomically ancient humans" created the art work. Now, if
one makes certain assumptions about the dating and just what hominid
dominated the human scene at that time, then one may infer as to what
hominid may have carved the object. But inference is far from fact. In
many ways, Glenn's current challenge is to refute inference and
explanation presented as fact.
This statement has weaknesses. Is it good science? Good science demands
that the weakness of a position be admitted so that others can do
further work in that area.
One may call the creation response as ignoring the data. Obviously a
creationist somewhere will have to dedicate their time, money, and
effort at reviewing this study or to respond to Glenn. This doesn't mean
that they are somehow helpless to respond or are ignoring the data. They
may actually agree in some areas but not in others. It is also a poor
way to boost one's own position. The logic that says one is right
because the other side fails to respond as quickly as one would like
proves nothing.
If creationists are silent, it may be that they feel that it is unwise
to make quantum leaps at conclusions just to prove or refute an
assumption. We may not even have any evidence to refute it. That does
not make it a fact. Perhaps, just perhaps, a true Christian response
should be silence, perhaps quiet inquiry, and contemplation. "Through
presumption comes nothing but strife..." (Prov 13:10). Should we not, as
Christians, refrain from spreading something as a fact when it may
actually be wrong?
To avoid any perception of high-mindedness, I will admit that
creationists have a lot of work to do to be able to some day respond
adequately to much of the data and evidence. In truthfulness, we must
all admit that that effort has only recently been undertaken to any
great extent, by a relatively few, and there will be many years to go
until broad substantive evidence develops. This does not mean that there
aren't any very good Christian creationist brothers and sisters who are
working hard at good science. They are not all the boogie-man out to
destroy TE's with a terrible swift sword.
Creationists have a lot of work ahead of them.
Glenn does raise some rather good points in his post, but IMHO the
accusations are misdirected. I really do believe that it is the process
that gives rise to the conclusions, i.e. the philosophy, the
assumptions, and the methodology, that inevitably results into two
widely divergent views. In fact, Glenn makes a very good observation:
GR> The louder we
GR>proclaim that our science is good, the more we can delude ourselves that we
GR>are clothed. In point of fact, we are naked.
This goes both ways. Good science is good science, wherever one comes
from.
For example, we all know that the proposed evolutionary sequence for man
includes conclusions based on both the presence and ABSENCE of fossil
and other evidence. Logical conclusions are drawn establishing the
relative time period for that form walking the earth. There is nothing
wrong with this, provided that one recognizes the assumptions and
methodologies and correctly presents the conclusions. Truly honest
scientists will admit that IT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG if the methodology
and assumptions are wrong. To be honest and admit that is good science.
Truly, it would also be the mark of a Christian to admit to it as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Through presumption comes nothing but strife..." (Prov 13:10)
Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland
NOTE NEW ADDRESS
pdd@garrett.ncin.com
---------------------------------------------------------
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu