Hi Christopher,
Please excuse the delay in my responding to your last post.
Despite your assurances re the cast-iron nature of the evidence for evolution,
those of us who accept the Bible as a unique body of revealed truth find it
impossible to believe for the simple reason that the alleged process
is completely
at odds with the direct teaching of the Incarnated Creator, Jesus Christ. For
example, how do you square "...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind...and...Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." (Mt.22:37-39) with the principle 'dog eat
dog'? Why would
our Lord - the personification of love - choose to use such a
process, declare it
complete, and then pronounce it all to be 'very good'? It is surely
an affront to
common sense and to the intelligence of every Bible-believer to
equate 'creation'
with 'evolution'.
It is helpful in this context that we remind ourselves of the Apostle Paul's
summary of the Lord's role in creation: "For by him (Jesus) were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were
created by him, and for him:..." (Col.1:16).
The fact that God's imaginative (Gen.8:21) enemies (eg Ps.2) should
come up with a
story of origins that is the antithesis of His revealed truth - and
threatens to
destroy it in the minds of men and women (undoubtedly, its true purpose!) - is
really hardly surprising.
The fact that that those who 'sell' the story to a gullible public
also pretend it
is based on a rigorous application of scientific principles should,
again, evince
no surprise.
The fact that scientists dismiss the possibility of supernatural
intervention in
their observations and deductions - despite clear biblical evidence that no one
can consider himself immune to such interaction (eg 1Sam.19:9-10, Job 1:6-12;
2:1-6, 1Ki.22) - is also hardly surprising. But the fiction continues - even
among Christians.
The fact that belief in the Theory of Evolution should so clearly
incorporate an
_imperative_ should also raise the suspicions of the Christian
thinker. Why is it
that people get so hot under the collar when discussing this particular matter?
What is so repugnant about the YEC position ('ignorant
anti-evolutionists' in the
minds of some!)? There can be little doubt that if people like
Richard Dawkins had
their way, we'd all be committed to an asylum! Again, why is there
such resistance
(even among Christians) to the call for a genuine debate about origins in our
schools and colleges? Could there, perhaps, be a spiritual dimension to these
matters? As Christians, we should surely be aware of the possibility -
particularly when we read of Darwin's agnosticism and Wallace's leanings to
spiritualism following the publication of 'The Origin...'.
Christopher, in your closing paragraph you appear to equate YEC with
anti-intellectualism. I believe the observations I have already made
demonstrate
this to be incorrect. If you accept the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures to be
'revealed truth', then the misunderstandings must lie on your side of
the fence;
if you don't, then I would be interested to know precisely where you
stand as a
Christian.
By the way, concerning your contention that the 'mabbul' was 'local':
are you not
ignoring the powerful language of
the narrative, the NT evidence, and simple _common sense_. With 100
years at his
disposal, Noah could easily
have walked his family and himself - along with the animals - to
safety! It would
appear that you deny the Scriptures
and ignore the obvious simply because of 'evolutionary pressures'.
Finally, let me put this to you: the motives of the early scientists
- principally
Christian - were free from guile; they simply desired to know more of God's
creation and 'to think His thoughts after Him'. Today, on the other hand, the
prevailing mood is confrontational. Many see it as their calling to
amass evidence
that, (a) confirms the earth and cosmos to be exceedingly old (a necessary
prerequiste for evolution), and (b) establishes evolution as an
indisputable fact
- thereby dealing the Scriptures a mortal blow. Would it not be reasonable to
believe that whereas the former proceeded (and continue to proceed) with God's
blessing, the latter must invite His anger and opposition? Bearing in
mind His (to
date, unfulfilled) promise to 'destroy the wisdom of the wise' (Is.29:13-16), I
believe it is essential that all Christians involved in this dialogue carefully
examine their motives and test the strength of the evidence they think they
possess - particularly in respect of the 'scientific rigour' displayed in
gathering it - thereby ensuring that they avoid God's censure and the
aforementioned 'destruction'.
Sincerely,
Vernon
CMSharp01@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Vernon,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > But why should Christians follow the materialists in believing that all
> they
> > see
> > (with or without aid) is all there is?
> > The Scriptures inform us that there is a supernatural cosmos
>that exists in
> > parallel with our own. In God's wisdom,
> > we are denied the finer details concerning this invisible domain - in
> which '
> > white
> > dwarfs' might well perform some significant role. Who can tell? And where
> is
> > the
> > Christian who would challenge the possibility?
>
> Fine, being a Christian I agree that there is a spiritual aspect to the
> universe, but from objective and empirical evidence, we know beyond all
> reasonable doubt that the universe is billions of years old. I chose the
> specific example of white dwarfs to illustrate this, but I could have taken
> one of many other example. We know beyond all reasonable doubt how most
> white dwarfs are formed, and we know, at least approximately, the timescales
> involved, and they are certainly much longer than the YEC 6000 years
> timescale.
>
> If you claim that white dwarfs may fulfill some sort of a spiritual role,
> then it is up to you offer an explanation. You seem to suggest that we can
> know nothing of the universe by studying it, which is in contradiction to
> Psalm 19.
>
> > You further comment:
> >
> > The problem with the appearance of age argument is that it
> > contradicts the very basic Christian tenet of searching for the truth.
> >
> > God having provided the truth concerning origins in the early chapters of
> > Genesis,
> > why turn your back on it and
> > seek another 'truth'?
>
> So in other words we should all go back to the Middle Ages and forget all the
> science we have learned! God has provided us with brains to search for more
> truths about His creation that the ancient Hebrews would not have understood.
>
> > By the way, I gather there is currently some concern about the variability
> > of the
> > fine structure constant over time.
> > Wouldn't you agree that this might well have dire consequences for the
> basic
> > assumptions upon which your idea of truth rests?
>
> Any possible variations of the fine structure constant would have been by a
> tiny amount over periods of billions of years, so would play no role at all
> in the basic truth that the universe is billions of years old. It may,
> however, modify some of our theories of the Big Bang and the early universe.
>
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Vernon
>
> I've noticed a strange anti-intellectual streak in YECs in particular, and
> some parts of evangelical Christianity in general, apart from obviously
> ignoring the mountains of evidence that support an ancient universe and a
> local Noah's Flood. I think that part of this is envy. In the past the
> church was the center of scholarly inquiry, including science. Priests,
> monks and the clergy were usually the most educated people in Europe in the
> Middle Ages. Now to be at the cutting edge of science you need a Ph.D. and
> understand all sorts of arcane concepts.
>
> Christopher Sharp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 17:13:52 EDT