> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Vernon Jenkins
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:06 PM
> To: CMSharp01@aol.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
>
>
>
> 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.
Well, The Bible actually endorses truth which is revealed in the creation,
itself.
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'.
Common sense would have me believe that the earth is flat and immovable. The
Earth has an amazing capacity to heal from devastating events, as does life.
That is pretty good, in my book. This also sounds like a Bible believer
cannot subscribe to evolution. Well, we know that is not true.
> 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).
Yeah, and...? This only addresses the responsible party, not any
mechanisms, per se.
> 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.
Does anyone else see the irony in these paragraphs?
> 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.
God of the Gaps?
> 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...'.
Should we call for debates regarding Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism? Is that
really constructive? Should we also teach it in our science classes?
> 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.
I'm not so sure.
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.
This is that exclusivism and prejudicial rhetoric creeping in.
> 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'.
Is it wrong to expect evidence for a Global catastrophe? Or do we simply
believe that God made it all disappear and replaced it with evidence of a
plethora of other events that did not actually occur.
> 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'.
And what exactly happened when these early scientists began to discover that
the creation had been around much longer that what they believed. Michael
Roberts has some very interesting essays discussing this very topic.
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.
Not at all. However, it dealt a blow to YEC-ism. I will grant you that.
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'.
What is this? IOW, while arm-waving, "if you don't believe as I do, you face
the wrath of God?"
Hi Chris, I understand your mileage may vary, but these comments were just
begging to be addressed.
Steve Krogh
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vernon
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> 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 - 23:44:00 EDT