Walter Hicks wrote:
<<
If someone needs to have this view [that the earth
is 6000 years old and everything else just appears
to be older] to prop us his/her faith then so be it.
Why is it necessary to beat them into the ground? As
paul suggested, we need not offend those of a less strong faith
--especially if the viewpoint is viable.
>>
I see your point, however, I would be a bit careful
about my way of wording it. As with most things,
my faith is strong in some ways, yet weak in others. People who
adopt a YEC view can be much stronger in
their confidence in prayer than me, yet seem so
feeble when it comes to facing head on the scientific
data that confronts them. It might be better to
view it as "areas in need of growth and improvement"
as we are all weak people in constant need of
reminders of our duties to follow Christ.
<<
There is no need for you to agree in order to
allow others to retain their viewpoint. If rigid
scientists dropped the "take no prisoners"
attitude, then perhaps hard line YECs would bend
also.
>>
I can basically agree, but one very sticky point
is over the education issues. As far as what someone
wants to believe, that is probably not my business
to monkey with, but we do need to teach students
science: how to analyze a process and how to
formulate and test that hypothesis. That is what
good science is all about. It seems to satisfy
the YEC folk in the US, we are either forced to
simply skip over the origins issue all together,
or confront the model in the best way we know how
from a scientific view point (which assumes
the intelligibility of our universe). If we do the
latter, the hard line YECs start demanding this
equal time nonsense. At some point, we *do* need to
teach our students how to do good science on the issue
of origins, and the YEC stuff just doesn't measure up.
So what do we do? If we present their ideas, we end
up doing short work on them, and so we lose whatever
we do.
So whereas I don't require that my students become
some carbon copy of my own way of thinking to
satisfy some goal in my life (probably a good idea
all of its own), neither do I feel it right to
simply neglect teaching students (at least in a
public institution) what scientist think is the best
(intelligible) way to describe what actually happened.
What do you suggest?
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 23:44:51 EDT