I would add to Allan's excellent points on some of the theological
reasons why people support YEC. After many discussions I would add two
more.
1. A theology of death that requires physical death to be consequence of
the fall and regards this link as so complete that denial of it is a
denial of the fall and the atonement.
2. An understanding that organic evolution is a godless process and
also, because of its perceived cruelty and wastefulness, beneath God's
integrity.
We need to tread carefully here, because these issues strike very close
to people's understanding of the character of God and the nature of the
gospel.
respectfully
Jon
SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/5/01 9:32:35 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> robert.rogland@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
>
>
>> Nevertheless, I don't think it is a good idea for the ASA to
>> undertake the
>> kind of effort he proposes. No doubt the great majority of members
>> are
>> OECs, but neither the stated goals of the association nor the
>> Statement of
>> Faith to which all members subscribe is that restrictive. One of
>> the
>> things that I appreciate about ASA is that Christians in science of
>> all
>> stripes-YECs, progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, and
>> ID
>> advocates-can meet together under the lordship of Christ. If ASA
>> sponsors
>> an explicityly OEC education project, we would de facto commit ASA
>> to a
>> position that some of its members cannot accept and did not expect
>> to
>> support when they joined.
>
> I would share Robert Rogland's concern, except that I think he
> mistakes the
> intent of the project. As I read the original message, it is not an
> "explicitly OEC education project". Instead, for example I see the
> phrase
> "show people believably that the young-earth view is not the only
> possible
> one."
>
> If it was aimed at convincing people that the old-Earth view was
> definitely
> correct and the young-Earth view was definitely wrong, then I agree it
> would
> be inappropriate for the ASA. But if the intention is to show that
> the
> young-Earth view is not the *only* acceptable Christian view, then it
> lines
> up with what the ASA has always stood for, as for example in the
> publication
> of "God Did It, But How?" The tone should be one of affirmation of
> God's
> status as Creator, and of saying that the means and chronology of that
>
> creation are secondary issues that should not divide the church and
> should
> not be made stumbling blocks to potential believers.
>
> My feeling is that, in order to get at the root of the problem, such
> an
> effort should not mainly focus on science. As many have pointed out,
> no
> amount of scientific evidence will convince the "true believer" who
> has been
> brainwashed into thinking a particular narrow interpretation of
> Genesis is
> essential to the faith. Somehow, people must be cured of two major
> errors,
> each of which is mainly theological and not scientific:
>
> 1) The error of trying to make Genesis be a science textbook. This is
> a
> tough one, as a fundamentalist view of Scripture has infected a lot of
> the
> Evangelical church. John McIntyre's article in the latest PSCF about
> the
> statement on Genesis of the Presbyterian Church in America is a good
> illustration of what we are up against. As long as people insist on
> extreme
> versions of "inerrancy" that don't allow God to communicate in
> figurative
> language and hold up Scripture to a modern-human-invented standard of
> scientific perfection that would have been wholly alien to Moses, the
> prospects are bleak. Somehow, we must encourage people to think that
> maybe
> God didn't care about teaching us scientific details in Genesis,
> without
> setting off alarm bells and accusations that we are saying Genesis
> isn't
> "true." Of course even for those strongly committed to literalism,
> there can
> be education that "days" need ! no! t mean 24 hours and that several
> verses in
> Genesis show "mediated" creation.
>
> 2) The "God of the Gaps" error. As Richard Bube put it:
> "No more damaging confusion is caused than that which arises from
> assuming
> that calling something 'natural' means that God is not involved, and
> that the
> involvement of God can be assured only by the treatment of specific
> phenomena
> as exclusively 'supernatural.'"
> Here the point of God's sovereignty over nature must be made, perhaps
> with
> the observation that the Bible credits God for things like rain and
> stars and
> mountains even though we have "natural" explanations for them. Here
> also
> pointing out that Genesis 1 actually pictures nature doing the
> creating of
> several things in obediance to God's command (which by the way puts
> Scripture
> in contradiction to the PCA statement) might be helpful.
>
> If people could be disabused of the erroneous philosophy (as
> propagated by
> people like Richard Dawkins outside the church and Phil Johnson within
> it)
> that "natural" explanations exclude God, much of the reason for
> Christian
> conflict with science (be it scientific explanations for the evolution
> of
> life or for the evolution and history of the universe and the Earth)
> would
> disappear. Not all of it, because there would still be the issue of
> whether
> some scientific explanations were contrary to Scripture. Which is
> where #1
> above comes in.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 06 2001 - 16:49:27 EST