on 1/4/01 9:22 PM, Emmett Wright at emwright@vt.edu wrote:
> I'm intrigued by the proposal, but have to agree that it's definitely an
> uphill battle. But that doesn't mean it can't be successful.
>
> Simply presenting scientific evidence that counters the claims of the 'young
> earth' viewpoint is not going to work. This issue isn't just about scientific
> explanations. You're dealing with something much more personal -- people's
> religious beliefs, their relationship with God and their eternal destiny.
> The 'young earth' message is presented as the "most Christian" viewpoint. From
> my own experience, to cross over the threshold from being a YECer to
> acceptance of an alternative world picture entails a crisis of faith. The
> challenge is to overcome the fear caused by having your beliefs challenged and
> to discover that, just maybe, you could be wrong. If you can survive that
> crisis, your faith comes out stronger; you learn that God is bigger than you
> thought, and your mind is opened to all sorts of new possibilities.
>
> Back to the original question posed by Mr. Haas. Other participants in this
> discussion mention the scholarly research, the journals and books that present
> alternative viewpoints for the believer to consider, alternatives that are
> consistent with both the scientific evidence and a biblically-based faith.
> These are a good start, to lay the intellectual foundations. And this
> combination has helped me. But [hint] look at how the 'young earth' message is
> propagated: through popular books and videos, magazine articles, TV and radio
> programs, public lectures by well-known personalities, in seminaries, in
> Sunday School and Bible studies and from the pulpit. (I DO NOT recommend
> another tactic: laws that call for "equal time" in the public classroom!)
> Finally, don't forget the enormous influence in the local church or classroom
> of someone who can demonstrate a expert knowledge of the physical world and at
> the same time "walks the talk" in his or her own life of faith.
>
> thanks for letting me share my two cents worth,
> Emmett
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:17:10 -0500 "Jack Haas" <haasJ@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> Greetings:
>
> I am writing to ask list members to help with a challenging project.
>
> An ASA member has offered a five figure sum to the organization to support a
> project that seeks to educate the lay Christian community (adults/youth) on
> issues related to the 'young earth' movement.
>
> His letter notes: "... The young-earth message has bitten very deeply into
> the evangelical culture, and people trust this message. What will it take to
> show people believably that the young-earth view is
> not the only possible one, without undermining the Christianity or sincerity
> of those that hold that position? [This grant is offered] to ASA, to promote
> serious discussion of the feasibility of working on publications that show the
> range of views that Christians have,and/or the necessity of believing the
> evidence for an ancient universe and the possibility of finding compatibility
> with Scripture."
>
> He is rightly concerned with the tensions that can emerge in any evangelical
> church or denomination over age and related origins questions. PSCF and this
> list reflect this tension. In spite of the diversity of views about details
> there is a broad consensus upon which to base a Christian view of science -
> including (I think) age and origins. The question before us is how to
> communicate this consensus to the Christian public.
>
> I am representing the ASA Council in asking for your input. What do you think
> about the project? What kind of approach should we use? What kind of
> materials should we use? What types of media? Are your aware of things in
> print that may be useful? Writers? My role is to collect ideas. The next step
> will be to present them to a committee which will set the course of the
> project.
>
> We are open to any and all ideas!
>
> Jack Haas
>
I agree with Emmett's thinking. A scientific confrontation would not work.
The basic problem is the same one that we all have. We all have been
taught to defend the faith that we usually were told. The flaw is the
attitude that everyone else should change their worldview, because "mine" is
the correct one. We can not force acceptance of views that appear
threatening.
We need to build intentional change into all our organizations, especially
education. We need to give the student h/h rightful freedom to build h/h
own worldview without dogmatic indoctrination from either science or
religion. Of course, fair guidance will be needed. Thus, we need to rebuild
all education to teach students how to use the freedom they have to build
healthy worldviews. We need to teach each student how to build a healthy
worldview. The assumptions that a student selects must allow the building
of a coherent worldview. Periodic change to that worldview will be
necessary to maintain a consistent set of relationships. Thus, consistency
must replace conformity as a guiding criterion.
To accomplish the building of healthy worldviews, all relevant topics must
be made available to the student. This means that our current application
of separation of Church and State is a major barrier to needed intentional
change.
A new openness to discussion and sharing that is not threatening will be
needed to facilitate intentional change. Shared discussion must replace
debate and confrontation. We are each responsible to use the freedom we
have to intentionally change our selves. We all are on journeys of faith
that need to periodically change to build a right moral society.
Jim Stark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 05 2001 - 11:08:58 EST